Ministers are not handling the COVID inquiry well – politicalbetting.com
Another PM who doesn't like answering straight questions. You can only assume that there is something they want to hide on the handling of COVID. https://t.co/FegyrSV4oH
For the last two months at least, UK businesses have put up prices by more than their costs have risen - the latest data for April shows input prices were up by 3.9%, while output prices increased by 5.4%.
Says the person threatening to destroy all comers in a debate over the role of the BoE/blame being apportioned on the BoE in the current inflationary mess we are in in a thread this morning 😂😂😂😂
Yes I did, but I don’t understand the point you are making about it. Firstly the %s above are not the inflation rate, they show the mark up as business doesn’t pass on falls in costs just as banks don’t give savers the new higher interest very quickly either. Secondly, to fight inflation, with the powers at their disposal, the BoE brought in money tightening, meanwhile splaffing money around at historic levels the governments largess obliterated the efforts the BoE were putting in. So it’s quite clear where most the blame lies.
A fraudster who posed as a cruise ship captain and conned £270,000 out of prospective holidaymakers has told a court that he can pay back only £350 to his victims.
Jody Oliver, 45, from Hereford, claimed to be the captain of a luxury liner that was offering cut-price holidays with a company called Carnival Cruises. He was said to have dressed as a captain and sent emails to himself from fake accounts that purported to be from Carnival employees.
Cardiff crown court was told that Oliver had also sent victims bills for £35 to cover invented excursions from the ship as it would sail around the Mediterranean. The entire venture was bogus, however, and that Oliver splurged hundreds of thousands of pounds on internet gambling, while also taking out payday loans.
He has been ordered to reimburse his victims but has told the court that only £350 of the £272,000 he swindled is left. Among his victims were pensioners who lost their savings after booking what they thought would be “once-in-a-lifetime” holidays.
Oliver, a former police special constable who was described as a Walter Mitty-style swindler, went to considerable lengths to maintain the ruse, dressing as a P&O captain to further his deceit.
On topic. I don’t agree with the header and it’s Boris centred conclusions and inferences. I think that’s missing the point.
I’ll phrase it like this: it was not just Boris more than ready to take plaudits for vaccine roll out, it was his whole party - it’s not just Boris who should be ready to be accountable for all decisions and activity fighting covid, it’s his whole party. As Chancellor, Sunak was up to his eyebrows in decision making and activity fighting covid, without doubt trying to hide the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth from a public enquiry, without even offering a good reason why, Sunak is trying to save his own skin.
Penny Mourdant by Christmas is not as far fetched as some push on this forum.
His grandmother-in-law is Harriet’s aunt! 1) good luck working that out in your head
Pause
Pause
The grandmother of the woman he was/is married to is the sister of either the father or the mother of Harriet Harman
or:
He is married to the first cousin once removed of Harriet Harman
I understand Harriet Harman once sat in a room with someone whose great uncle visited Berlin when Adolf Hitler was the Fuhrer. That’s why Hartiet Harman hates democracy. She should recuse herself from everything. Imagine being Calgie. Imagine writing this shite.
Mr Chisholm is married to the cousin of Harriet Harman.
Nadine Dorries says: “Harriet Harman should recuse herself from the Privileges Committee kangaroo court. Failing that the Committee must completely reject the information Mr Chisholm handed to them.”
It’s a reminder that, whatever his relative virtues, he’s not actually up to it.
Get rid.
He's not very good is he?
He is man out of time.
As I noted last thread, the neo-liberal era is over. After the death throes set in after 2008, it finally collapsed somewhere between the onset of Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It becomes hard not to assume that the attempts to stymie the Covid inquiry have little or nothing to do with past PMs. What exactly does the current PM and Chancellor have to hide from the public? I think we can all point to at least one potential problem for each of them.
Should that be an issue? Those were remarkable times and we need a proper study into what worked and what didn't, which preparations were made and which others were needed, the necessity or otherwise of some of the clearly damaging measures taken.
We need to meet the next such crisis with such lessons learned and it is very dangerous to assume we have a lot of time to do so. Frankly the failings (or otherwise) of Messrs Hunt and Sunak are very small beer compared to that. In a very few years they will both be a largely forgotten footnotes anyway.
His grandmother-in-law is Harriet’s aunt! 1) good luck working that out in your head
Pause
Pause
The grandmother of the woman he was/is married to is the sister of either the father or the mother of Harriet Harman
or:
He is married to the first cousin once removed of Harriet Harman
I understand Harriet Harman once sat in a room with someone whose great uncle visited Berlin when Adolf Hitler was the Fuhrer. That’s why Hartiet Harman hates democracy. She should recuse herself from everything. Imagine being Calgie. Imagine writing this shite.
Mr Chisholm is married to the cousin of Harriet Harman.
Nadine Dorries says: “Harriet Harman should recuse herself from the Privileges Committee kangaroo court. Failing that the Committee must completely reject the information Mr Chisholm handed to them.”
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
His grandmother-in-law is Harriet’s aunt! 1) good luck working that out in your head
Pause
Pause
The grandmother of the woman he was/is married to is the sister of either the father or the mother of Harriet Harman
or:
He is married to the first cousin once removed of Harriet Harman
Second one
His wife's father, Thomas Pakenham, is Hattie's cousin
I am a distant cousin of Harriet Harman on my mother’s side. But not of the Pakenhams.
Am I right in assuming that Frank Pakenham in that family tree is Lord Longford? More importantly is the author of Peace by Ordeal - one of the best books ever written on any aspect of 20th century history?
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
You would hope this to be case.
But it appears rather that the British government now runs like a dodgy start-up which has run out of early stage funding due to the CEO’s coke habit.
The CFO has now taken over and realised that there’s no fucking viable product, never was any, and that they’re going to have to pivot.
His grandmother-in-law is Harriet’s aunt! 1) good luck working that out in your head
Pause
Pause
The grandmother of the woman he was/is married to is the sister of either the father or the mother of Harriet Harman
or:
He is married to the first cousin once removed of Harriet Harman
I understand Harriet Harman once sat in a room with someone whose great uncle visited Berlin when Adolf Hitler was the Fuhrer. That’s why Hartiet Harman hates democracy. She should recuse herself from everything. Imagine being Calgie. Imagine writing this shite.
Mr Chisholm is married to the cousin of Harriet Harman.
Nadine Dorries says: “Harriet Harman should recuse herself from the Privileges Committee kangaroo court. Failing that the Committee must completely reject the information Mr Chisholm handed to them.”
His grandmother-in-law is Harriet’s aunt! 1) good luck working that out in your head
Pause
Pause
The grandmother of the woman he was/is married to is the sister of either the father or the mother of Harriet Harman
or:
He is married to the first cousin once removed of Harriet Harman
Second one
His wife's father, Thomas Pakenham, is Hattie's cousin
I am a distant cousin of Harriet Harman on my mother’s side. But not of the Pakenhams.
Am I right in assuming that Frank Pakenham in that family tree is Lord Longford? More importantly is the author of Peace by Ordeal - one of the best books ever written on any aspect of 20th century history?
They are one and the same. I’ve no idea about the book, but I can confirm that Harriet Harman, via the Harmans, is also related to Keith Moon.
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
This feels right. Listening to accounts of the various WhatsApp groups during the Brexit referendum, I get the impression that ministers and MPs are like kids in a sweet shop - it is suddenly far easier to gossip, plot rebellions, communicate with fellow travelers in a particular faction, evade the whips etc.
So I wonder if emotionally ministers are reluctant to give up WhatsApp, even if intellectually they know they should.
His grandmother-in-law is Harriet’s aunt! 1) good luck working that out in your head
Pause
Pause
The grandmother of the woman he was/is married to is the sister of either the father or the mother of Harriet Harman
or:
He is married to the first cousin once removed of Harriet Harman
Second one
His wife's father, Thomas Pakenham, is Hattie's cousin
I am a distant cousin of Harriet Harman on my mother’s side. But not of the Pakenhams.
Am I right in assuming that Frank Pakenham in that family tree is Lord Longford? More importantly is the author of Peace by Ordeal - one of the best books ever written on any aspect of 20th century history?
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
Er, banning personal devices from government offices might be… tricky.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
You can now get into colleges like Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford with just 3 Bs at A level if you are assessed as a 'disadvantaged' student who went to a state school. Cambridge doing similar
Also: both Cambridge and Oxford have been very happy to give EE offers to students who impressed enormously at interview. (And, indeed, I got a EE offer from UCL.)
Slacker. I got a UU offer from UCL.
For those who weren’t around in the 90s, UCL would do this with groups of students with very high predicted grades. According to a prof, the actual results didn’t drop off much, if at all.
Since I’d taken 2 A levels a year early, I got a place on the spot….
His grandmother-in-law is Harriet’s aunt! 1) good luck working that out in your head
Pause
Pause
The grandmother of the woman he was/is married to is the sister of either the father or the mother of Harriet Harman
or:
He is married to the first cousin once removed of Harriet Harman
I understand Harriet Harman once sat in a room with someone whose great uncle visited Berlin when Adolf Hitler was the Fuhrer. That’s why Hartiet Harman hates democracy. She should recuse herself from everything. Imagine being Calgie. Imagine writing this shite.
Mr Chisholm is married to the cousin of Harriet Harman.
Nadine Dorries says: “Harriet Harman should recuse herself from the Privileges Committee kangaroo court. Failing that the Committee must completely reject the information Mr Chisholm handed to them.”
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
Er, banning personal devices from government offices might be… tricky.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
How do you think the military do it? The school calls the switchboard and leaves a message.
I was however mostly referring to the Whitehall offices, rather than random non-customer-facing admin centres.
Most banks and trading companies will have similar rules, it’s not just a public-sector thing.
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
Er, banning personal devices from government offices might be… tricky.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
Have you been in an investment bank? They manage to have trading floors with private devices banned.
You simply divert your personal calls to your desk phone. If you want to call out - free from the desk phone.
Can we deploy army snipers to test match grounds? If Just Stop Oil bugger up the Ashes then I expect the crowd will take matters into their own hands. I'm sure the Western Terrace or the Hollies Stand will be particularly sympathetic.
MCC to ramp up security for Lord's Ashes Test over Just Stop Oil fears
Cricket authorities have growing concerns that any paint on the wicket will be impossible to shift without changing or damaging it
Marylebone Cricket Club, the proprietors of Lord’s, will ramp up security because of fears Just Stop Oil protesters will try to sabotage next month's Ashes. Cricket authorities are bracing themselves for this summer’s series against Australia to be the latest target in a string of sporting pitch invasions by the environmental activists.
On Saturday, two men stormed the pitch at Twickenham, where the Premiership Rugby final between Saracens and Sale Sharks had to be paused for five minutes after they threw orange powder paint onto the pitch. England’s Tom Curry helped stewards escort one of the men from the field, and the pair were booed by the crowd.
Just Stop Oil last month disrupted the World Snooker Championship at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, with two individuals jumping onto the tables and pouring paint over themselves, before being removed. Last week the environmentalist group also targeted the Chelsea Flower Show. Commander Kyle Gordon of the Metropolitan Police said that London has seen 102 slow marches from Just Stop Oil, leading to 51 arrests.
Might be able to sniper them under a Tory government, but if there is a government change in UK next year, snipering these extremist vandals will be against Labour Party policy - the Labour Party is being funded by the political wing of these extremists, so will be giving back something in return for the millions of political funding. By excepting donations from the political wing of these extremist groups, will Labour now even be able to clamp down on, arrest and imprison these extremists, let alone sniper them? This is exactly how once moderate and stable countries slip into anarchy and chaos isn’t it?
In fact, with political parties funded in this way, just how democratic can we state a country is?
Stop reading the Daily Mail. You need help
Rabbit has no interest in the Mail. It's too lefty.
with political parties funded in this way, taking money from absolutely anyone just because they love one and a half million pound donations, and they who pay the piper plays the tune, just how democratic can we state a country is? You are tackling the player not the ball because you don’t have an answer to this question, that’s plain for everyone to see.
You were trying to say yesterday this guy was as bad as Putin. Nobody can be expected to engage with you seriously on this issue. This is pigeon/chess territory.
I didn’t say that all, it was those arguing with me who brought Putin into it, on the grounds alongs it’s not money from Putins regime like Tory’s have taken then any other donation from anybody else is acceptable. Quite a pathetic fake yardstick you agree - is the money from Putin or Russia? No? Accept it then, as it’s not as bad of Putin/SMERCH money.
You and the others have given quite the pathetic reply to the Daily Mails questioning of Labour’s democratic values actually. For one thing, since 2010 the Tory Party overall have been more susceptible to Chinese use of soft power, splashing their largesse around the world, they get from running a country of slave workers with no rights at all - only appears Boris and his cronies who made the mistake accepting the Russian cash, whilst the parties official policy was to condemn seizure and occupation of Crimea.
Straight away last evening and this afternoon throwing Putin’s money as being the yardstick for all political donations, has been quite pathetic reply from you hasn’t it? There is a fair and serious question here about the funding of our political parties and its impact on our democracy.
So Farooq, Horse Bat, and any other critic of my argument here, where exactly is Labour’s line on acceptable/not acceptable donations?
Next time/if ever we get a Labour government, will there be any improvement in UK democracy by looking at party funding? Can Labour look into changing it for the better when up to their eyebrows in sleaze of the current political funding system in UK?
Especially you HorseBat, banging on it’s going to be hung parliament when seat predictors on current swing has majority in three figures - when in coalition with libdems Deputy Primeminister Davey asks for a fresh look at party funding, Labour will say no chance, we are having too much fun splashing around in the current sleazy system. You think that’s good?
You can now get into colleges like Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford with just 3 Bs at A level if you are assessed as a 'disadvantaged' student who went to a state school. Cambridge doing similar
Also: both Cambridge and Oxford have been very happy to give EE offers to students who impressed enormously at interview. (And, indeed, I got a EE offer from UCL.)
Slacker. I got a UU offer from UCL.
I got told it didn't matter what grades I got in anything or had ever got in anything, and that they'd accept me into Jesus College, Cambridge, regardless. Then again, I am a member of the royal family.
On topic: this feels like an unusually partisan tweeter for Mike to promote.
But the video is horrific. It’s bad enough having a junior minister wheeled out to do the interviews who is unwilling to step beyond their brief and so transparently parrots the sound bite they have been told to parrot.
But for the PM to do this? Makes you wonder who (if anyone) is in charge. Pathetic.
I had been on the fence about Sunak, but this interview is inexcusable in my view.
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
Er, banning personal devices from government offices might be… tricky.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
How do you think the military do it? The school calls the switchboard and leaves a message.
I was however mostly referring to the Whitehall offices, rather than random non-customer admin centres.
The civil service is not the military, nor should it be. But yeah, some sushi got poisoned with polonium once, so let’s ban all Japanese food.
95% of the civil service has nowt to do with politics, and is about delivering public services. Why should they be punished because of a few morally incontinent ministers?
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
Er, banning personal devices from government offices might be… tricky.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
Simple: use a device that isn't personal.
But for you that's akin to going in to work with a toy fish on your head, right?
It’s a reminder that, whatever his relative virtues, he’s not actually up to it.
Get rid.
He's not very good is he?
I'm reminded of Sir Desmond Glazebrook's commentary on bankers.
Sir Desmond: If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.
Sir Humphrey : If you're crooked?
Sir Desmond: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid.
Sir Humphrey : So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
Rishi's problem is that he's not clever enough to get away with being crooked. Boris only got away with it for a while, and Rishi isn't as clever as Boris. Unfortunately, he's also not honest enough to get away with being incompetent.
The Conservative problem is that Rishi is certainly as good as they can do for now, and perhaps for a decade.
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
Er, banning personal devices from government offices might be… tricky.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
Simple: use a device that isn't personal.
But for you that's akin to going in to work with a toy fish on your head, right?
1) If an airliner crashes on the exact Ukraine/Republic of China border, on which side do you bury the survivors? 2) Pineapple on pizza - warcrime? 3) what is the one question Piers Corbyn is the answer to?
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
Er, banning personal devices from government offices might be… tricky.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
Simple: use a device that isn't personal.
But for you that's akin to going in to work with a toy fish on your head, right?
If you can’t see that this is a vastly disproportionate and probably ineffective and expensive solution (so we need to provide phones to every one now?!), I don’t know what to say to you.
The problem is shitty MPs doing shitty things. They will find a way around it.
Actually I don't see anything much wrong with the Rishi Sunak clip that Mike has posted, either in content or in style, except that he'd do better to vary his wording when giving the same answer to repeated versions of the same question. The reason he is fudging may be that the legal position doesn't seem to be quite a clear-cut as appeared at first sight:
" Bloomberg has obtained written legal advice from the government‘s top lawyer Sir James Eadie KC to the Cabinet Office
It advises them NOT to hand over “politically sensitive” material about ministers’ private discussions to the Covid inquiry.
Eadie advised that disclosing “politically sensitive” material to the inquiry on discussions between ministers would breach Cabinet collective responsibility, which allows confidentiality to debate policy."
Admittedly that seems to make a nonsense of the Inquiry, but that perhaps reflects the fact that an Inquiry like this, into politically-charged events at the heart of government, is problematic so soon after the events.
Whatsapp should be banned on government devices, and personal devices banned from government offices. All phones to be managed centrally by either the CS IT department, or the party IT department, as appropriate. Able to be backed up and/or wiped remotely.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants. 2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants. 3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101. IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
Er, banning personal devices from government offices might be… tricky.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
Have you been in an investment bank? They manage to have trading floors with private devices banned.
You simply divert your personal calls to your desk phone. If you want to call out - free from the desk phone.
No, I haven’t, but I daresay there’s a legitimate case for it there. Most government offices are not the dens of conspiracy I think most on here seem to imagine they are. They’re normal offices with regular people working in them.
I'm not sure the public actually is eagerly awaiting the report. Those who lost close relatives, perhaps, but in general my sense is that people want to put it behind them, even though it is in fact still a fairly serious pandemic in progress.
That said, Sunak's interview does show a weakness. He adopts a position he thinks logical, but doesn't have the fluent ease in diverting the discussion that most politicians acquire. In a way it does him credit, but he'll get eaten up in debates.
It’s a reminder that, whatever his relative virtues, he’s not actually up to it.
Get rid.
He's not very good is he?
He is man out of time.
As I noted last thread, the neo-liberal era is over. After the death throes set in after 2008, it finally collapsed somewhere between the onset of Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I'm not sure the public actually is eagerly awaiting the report. Those who lost close relatives, perhaps, but in general my sense is that people want to put it behind them, even though it is in fact still a fairly serious pandemic in progress.
That said, Sunak's interview does show a weakness. He adopts a position he thinks logical, but doesn't have the fluent ease in diverting the discussion that most politicians acquire. In a way it does him credit, but he'll get eaten up in debates.
It's a bit like the Ed Miliband "these strikes are wrong" interview from c.2014 but he'll be fine in the debates, he's much more natural than he was and he won't be dodging what the journalist was clearly after: for him to commit some 'news'.
Actually I don't see anything much wrong with the Rishi Sunak clip that Mike has posted, either in content or in style, except that he'd do better to vary his wording when giving the same answer to repeated versions of the same question. The reason he is fudging may be that the legal position doesn't seem to be quite a clear-cut as appeared at first sight:
" Bloomberg has obtained written legal advice from the government‘s top lawyer Sir James Eadie KC to the Cabinet Office
It advises them NOT to hand over “politically sensitive” material about ministers’ private discussions to the Covid inquiry.
Eadie advised that disclosing “politically sensitive” material to the inquiry on discussions between ministers would breach Cabinet collective responsibility, which allows confidentiality to debate policy."
Admittedly that seems to make a nonsense of the Inquiry, but that perhaps reflects the fact that an Inquiry like this, into politically-charged events at the heart of government, is problematic so soon after the events.
There’s a few good issues to debate there.
The fact of the pandemic, meant that a lot of conversations that would happen in person between two individuals, ended up happening electronically, and therefore were recorded somewhere.
The remit of the inquiry, needs to be focussed on what went right and what didn’t, and on how disaster plans should be updated to better cope with the next pandemic. It should explicitly not seek to blame individuals.
The template should be a transport accident inquiry, where the inquiry takes as much physical and electronic evidence as they can find, and speaks to individuals involved privately (with perhaps a union rep, definitely not a lawyer present). The evidence may be presented in summary form in the final report, but individuals are not identified.
It’s a reminder that, whatever his relative virtues, he’s not actually up to it.
Get rid.
He's not very good is he?
Yes he is.
We all know you'll die in the ditch for him - fine.
The simple question remains - why should anyone vote for him or the Conservatives next year? All you seem to have is the nonsense that "Labour would be worse" - perhaps, but after 13 years of the same party leading the Government and a list of accomplishments which would fill a medium sized water biscuit, simply trying to claim the other lot would be worse has to punch well above its weight.
I'm not sure the public actually is eagerly awaiting the report. Those who lost close relatives, perhaps, but in general my sense is that people want to put it behind them, even though it is in fact still a fairly serious pandemic in progress.
95% of Joe Public's already made up their mind one way or the other. The fact that their viewpoint is highly likely to correlate with their voting intention for the government is in no way related...
Probably for some small groups both personally, professionally and politically there'll be some genuinely useful nuggets that come from the report, but mostly this is just the price that needs to be paid to get through the crisis at the time i.e. do whatever you do during it and mollify people with the promise of the inquiry later when the world's mostly moved on.
Actually I don't see anything much wrong with the Rishi Sunak clip that Mike has posted, either in content or in style, except that he'd do better to vary his wording when giving the same answer to repeated versions of the same question. The reason he is fudging may be that the legal position doesn't seem to be quite a clear-cut as appeared at first sight:
" Bloomberg has obtained written legal advice from the government‘s top lawyer Sir James Eadie KC to the Cabinet Office
It advises them NOT to hand over “politically sensitive” material about ministers’ private discussions to the Covid inquiry.
Eadie advised that disclosing “politically sensitive” material to the inquiry on discussions between ministers would breach Cabinet collective responsibility, which allows confidentiality to debate policy."
Admittedly that seems to make a nonsense of the Inquiry, but that perhaps reflects the fact that an Inquiry like this, into politically-charged events at the heart of government, is problematic so soon after the events.
There’s a few good issues to debate there.
The fact of the pandemic, meant that a lot of conversations that would happen in person between two individuals, ended up happening electronically, and therefore were recorded somewhere.
The remit of the inquiry, needs to be focussed on what went right and what didn’t, and on how disaster plans should be updated to better cope with the next pandemic. It should explicitly not seek to blame individuals.
The template should be a transport accident inquiry, where the inquiry takes as much physical and electronic evidence as they can find, and speaks to individuals involved privately (with perhaps a union rep, definitely not a lawyer present). The evidence may be presented in summary form in the final report, but individuals are not identified.
Yes, I think that is correct - the aim of the Inquiry should be to learn lessons which can be applied next time, and also allow better preparation before next time, but in practice is going to get bogged down in people hoping to make political capital out of it. I don't think a highly formalised judicial Inquiry like this was a good idea.
In any case we already know what the most important lesson is: don't choose a dishonest charlatan with the attention span of a gnat and an incorrigible refusal to take anything seriously as PM.
It’s a reminder that, whatever his relative virtues, he’s not actually up to it.
Get rid.
He's not very good is he?
I'm reminded of Sir Desmond Glazebrook's commentary on bankers.
Sir Desmond: If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.
Sir Humphrey : If you're crooked?
Sir Desmond: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid.
Sir Humphrey : So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
Rishi's problem is that he's not clever enough to get away with being crooked. Boris only got away with it for a while, and Rishi isn't as clever as Boris. Unfortunately, he's also not honest enough to get away with being incompetent.
The Conservative problem is that Rishi is certainly as good as they can do for now, and perhaps for a decade.
Doesn't necessarily matter, if Labour get in to government and inflation and cost of living continue to rise, taxes go up and strike resume the Tory opposition will swiftly retake a poll lead almost whoever leads them as long as they are not too ERG
I'm not sure the public actually is eagerly awaiting the report. Those who lost close relatives, perhaps, but in general my sense is that people want to put it behind them, even though it is in fact still a fairly serious pandemic in progress.
That said, Sunak's interview does show a weakness. He adopts a position he thinks logical, but doesn't have the fluent ease in diverting the discussion that most politicians acquire. In a way it does him credit, but he'll get eaten up in debates.
I don't wholly agree. I think the sequence of events and the decision making processes will be of interest. A lot was going on behind the scenes in early to mid March 2020 and often, I think we'll find, based on assumptions and predictions which turned out to be incorrect or invalid. To what extent, for example, were the decisions around care home residents and sending older people (likely with the virus) back from hospitals to those residential homes based on false assumptions about how the virus was spread and its likely impact on vulnerable older people?
I'm not sure the public actually is eagerly awaiting the report. Those who lost close relatives, perhaps, but in general my sense is that people want to put it behind them, even though it is in fact still a fairly serious pandemic in progress.
That said, Sunak's interview does show a weakness. He adopts a position he thinks logical, but doesn't have the fluent ease in diverting the discussion that most politicians acquire. In a way it does him credit, but he'll get eaten up in debates.
Considering that Johnson set up the enquiry and its Terms of Reference it seems odd to deny it access to potentially useful evidence.
I can only assume that his arrogant belief in his own immunity to the rules that little people have to follow is the cause of this issue arising.
I can't see what Sunak gets out of obstructing the enquiry though.
You can now get into colleges like Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford with just 3 Bs at A level if you are assessed as a 'disadvantaged' student who went to a state school. Cambridge doing similar
Also: both Cambridge and Oxford have been very happy to give EE offers to students who impressed enormously at interview. (And, indeed, I got a EE offer from UCL.)
Slacker. I got a UU offer from UCL.
I got told it didn't matter what grades I got in anything or had ever got in anything, and that they'd accept me into Jesus College, Cambridge, regardless. Then again, I am a member of the royal family.
Not now, Prince William went to St Andrews, Princess Eugenie to Newcastle, Princess Beatrice to Goldsmiths, Peter and Zara Phillips to Exeter and Prince Harry didn't go to University at all.
It’s a reminder that, whatever his relative virtues, he’s not actually up to it.
Get rid.
He's not very good is he?
Yes he is.
We all know you'll die in the ditch for him - fine.
The simple question remains - why should anyone vote for him or the Conservatives next year? All you seem to have is the nonsense that "Labour would be worse" - perhaps, but after 13 years of the same party leading the Government and a list of accomplishments which would fill a medium sized water biscuit, simply trying to claim the other lot would be worse has to punch well above its weight.
I just don't agree he's "not very good". I think he is very good and is getting a grip on a lot of things. Including the public finances and, eventually, tax.
He's just batting on a very sticky wicket as a bit of nightwatchman and people are calling him "shit" because they want to twist the knife in the carcass of the Conservative Party.
I get that visceral partisan desire, but it doesn't mean he's not good.
I think Labour will increase tax still further, nanny and regulate me further, and deteriorate the public finances further by punting out fiscal balance - I have no appetite for that.
In order not to disappoint @MoonRabbit, a quick take on tonight's "Red Wall" which has something for everyone. The numbers from a fortnight ago did look a bit frothy but tonight's numbers still represent a 13% swing from Conservative to Labour.
Last night's wider GB poll from R&W had a 13.5% swing from Conservative to Labour.
As a contrast, last week's GB poll had a Con-Lab swing of 12% and the "Blue Wall" had a swing of 14% from Conservative to Labour so it's still sitting fairly comfortably with a national swing of 12-13% and the swings in the respective "Walls" much the same.
What we've yet to see is the impact of tactical voting - according to last week's R&W Blue Wall polling, two thirds of LD voters would consider a tactical vote as would just over half of Labour's voters.
In order not to disappoint @MoonRabbit, a quick take on tonight's "Red Wall" which has something for everyone. The numbers from a fortnight ago did look a bit frothy but tonight's numbers still represent a 13% swing from Conservative to Labour.
Last night's wider GB poll from R&W had a 13.5% swing from Conservative to Labour.
As a contrast, last week's GB poll had a Con-Lab swing of 12% and the "Blue Wall" had a swing of 14% from Conservative to Labour so it's still sitting fairly comfortably with a national swing of 12-13% and the swings in the respective "Walls" much the same.
What we've yet to see is the impact of tactical voting - according to last week's R&W Blue Wall polling, two thirds of LD voters would consider a tactical vote as would just over half of Labour's voters.
Tories back ahead in the Redfield bluewall poll though despite trailing in the redwall poll
I'm not sure the public actually is eagerly awaiting the report. Those who lost close relatives, perhaps, but in general my sense is that people want to put it behind them, even though it is in fact still a fairly serious pandemic in progress.
That said, Sunak's interview does show a weakness. He adopts a position he thinks logical, but doesn't have the fluent ease in diverting the discussion that most politicians acquire. In a way it does him credit, but he'll get eaten up in debates.
Like Iraq, I think many if not most people have decided on their version of what happened. Be it locking down too late, too soon, for too long, to dodgy PPE contracts, to vaccinations, to parties, I doubt many minds will be swayed.
In order not to disappoint @MoonRabbit, a quick take on tonight's "Red Wall" which has something for everyone. The numbers from a fortnight ago did look a bit frothy but tonight's numbers still represent a 13% swing from Conservative to Labour.
Last night's wider GB poll from R&W had a 13.5% swing from Conservative to Labour.
As a contrast, last week's GB poll had a Con-Lab swing of 12% and the "Blue Wall" had a swing of 14% from Conservative to Labour so it's still sitting fairly comfortably with a national swing of 12-13% and the swings in the respective "Walls" much the same.
What we've yet to see is the impact of tactical voting - according to last week's R&W Blue Wall polling, two thirds of LD voters would consider a tactical vote as would just over half of Labour's voters.
Tories back ahead in the Redfield bluewall poll though despite trailing in the redwall poll
These are seats which the Conservatives won with 50% of the vote last time - the current Blue Wall poll shows them down sixteen points or one third of the vote which equates to a national vote share of about 30%. Labour are up twelve points and the Liberal Democrats down five on 2019.
The Blue Wall has a number of Conservative-Labour marginals as well as Conservative-LD marginals and I'm sure a number of these would be vulnerable on a 14% swing which takes us to the 174th most marginal Conservative seat so a result closer to 2005 than 2001 or 1997 until we factor in tactical voting which could mean two thirds of LD voters and half of Labour voters switching tactically to unseat an incumbent Conservative.
In order not to disappoint @MoonRabbit, a quick take on tonight's "Red Wall" which has something for everyone. The numbers from a fortnight ago did look a bit frothy but tonight's numbers still represent a 13% swing from Conservative to Labour.
Last night's wider GB poll from R&W had a 13.5% swing from Conservative to Labour.
As a contrast, last week's GB poll had a Con-Lab swing of 12% and the "Blue Wall" had a swing of 14% from Conservative to Labour so it's still sitting fairly comfortably with a national swing of 12-13% and the swings in the respective "Walls" much the same.
What we've yet to see is the impact of tactical voting - according to last week's R&W Blue Wall polling, two thirds of LD voters would consider a tactical vote as would just over half of Labour's voters.
Tories back ahead in the Redfield bluewall poll though despite trailing in the redwall poll
These are seats which the Conservatives won with 50% of the vote last time - the current Blue Wall poll shows them down sixteen points or one third of the vote which equates to a national vote share of about 30%. Labour are up twelve points and the Liberal Democrats down five on 2019.
The Blue Wall has a number of Conservative-Labour marginals as well as Conservative-LD marginals and I'm sure a number of these would be vulnerable on a 14% swing which takes us to the 174th most marginal Conservative seat so a result closer to 2005 than 2001 or 1997 until we factor in tactical voting which could mean two thirds of LD voters and half of Labour voters switching tactically to unseat an incumbent Conservative.
My assumption in this manoeuvrer is that there's some really bad sh*t about Rishi (and/or current cabinet members) that they don't want published. If it was pure Boris I suspect it'd have been handed over in a jiffy.
My assumption in this manoeuvrer is that there's some really bad sh*t about Rishi (and/or current cabinet members) that they don't want published. If it was pure Boris I suspect it'd have been handed over in a jiffy.
Honestly, it's not as though anyone thought South Africa was going to arrest Putin if he showed up, why not just ignore it? South Africa is going to change its law so that it has the power to decide whether or not to arrest a leader wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), a deputy minister has told the BBC.
Earlier this year, Russia’s leader was invited to a summit in South Africa, but a subsequent arrest warrant issued by the ICC means South Africa would be expected to arrest Vladimir Putin if he attends the gathering of the Brics group of nations in August.
“In June we'll be submitting the law in parliament,” Obed Bapela, a deputy minister in the South African presidency, told the BBC’s Newshour programme.
Through the law South Africa "will give itself exemptions of who to arrest and who not to arrest", Mr Bapela said.
You can now get into colleges like Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford with just 3 Bs at A level if you are assessed as a 'disadvantaged' student who went to a state school. Cambridge doing similar
Also: both Cambridge and Oxford have been very happy to give EE offers to students who impressed enormously at interview. (And, indeed, I got a EE offer from UCL.)
Slacker. I got a UU offer from UCL.
For those who weren’t around in the 90s, UCL would do this with groups of students with very high predicted grades. According to a prof, the actual results didn’t drop off much, if at all.
Since I’d taken 2 A levels a year early, I got a place on the spot….
The boasting by @rcs1000 that his daughter is smarter than him is touching and lovely, until one remembers that @rcs1000 is basically a car park attendant
It’s a reminder that, whatever his relative virtues, he’s not actually up to it.
Get rid.
He's not very good is he?
Yes he is.
We all know you'll die in the ditch for him - fine.
The simple question remains - why should anyone vote for him or the Conservatives next year? All you seem to have is the nonsense that "Labour would be worse" - perhaps, but after 13 years of the same party leading the Government and a list of accomplishments which would fill a medium sized water biscuit, simply trying to claim the other lot would be worse has to punch well above its weight.
I just don't agree he's "not very good". I think he is very good and is getting a grip on a lot of things. Including the public finances and, eventually, tax.
He's just batting on a very sticky wicket as a bit of nightwatchman and people are calling him "shit" because they want to twist the knife in the carcass of the Conservative Party.
I get that visceral partisan desire, but it doesn't mean he's not good.
I think Labour will increase tax still further, nanny and regulate me further, and deteriorate the public finances further by punting out fiscal balance - I have no appetite for that.
The evidence of him "getting a grip on a lot of things" hasn't really got through to a lot of people yet. I will cheerfully concede he has provided stability and we clearly now have a serious person at the head of the Cabinet table (not sure about some of the others round the same table however).
I struggle to see how much empathy he really has with ordinary people - he may surprise me come the election as Major did in 1992.
The problem he has is the Party he leads - I cannot see how anyone can contemplate voting for the Conservative Party after the way elements of the party (by no means all) have comported themselves in recent times and the emergence of the immigration fault line within the party is going to make herding cats seem easy.
As to what Labour will do, I can't answer that. I might well agree we are over-taxed and certainly we are over-regulated but the current Conservative Party has to take plenty of the blame and, I would argue, for all the notion of regulation, the real transfer of power since 2019 has been from Westminster to Whitehall. Ministers have played fast and loose with Parliament and Parliamentary scrutiny - how that is in any way defensible, especially by those who proclaimed the victory of "sovereignty" when we left the EU is beyond me.
I didn't support the repatriation of powers from Brussels to see those powers end up in Whitehall. Did you?
Actually I don't see anything much wrong with the Rishi Sunak clip that Mike has posted, either in content or in style, except that he'd do better to vary his wording when giving the same answer to repeated versions of the same question. The reason he is fudging may be that the legal position doesn't seem to be quite a clear-cut as appeared at first sight:
" Bloomberg has obtained written legal advice from the government‘s top lawyer Sir James Eadie KC to the Cabinet Office
It advises them NOT to hand over “politically sensitive” material about ministers’ private discussions to the Covid inquiry.
Eadie advised that disclosing “politically sensitive” material to the inquiry on discussions between ministers would breach Cabinet collective responsibility, which allows confidentiality to debate policy."
Admittedly that seems to make a nonsense of the Inquiry, but that perhaps reflects the fact that an Inquiry like this, into politically-charged events at the heart of government, is problematic so soon after the events.
There’s a few good issues to debate there.
The fact of the pandemic, meant that a lot of conversations that would happen in person between two individuals, ended up happening electronically, and therefore were recorded somewhere.
The remit of the inquiry, needs to be focussed on what went right and what didn’t, and on how disaster plans should be updated to better cope with the next pandemic. It should explicitly not seek to blame individuals.
The template should be a transport accident inquiry, where the inquiry takes as much physical and electronic evidence as they can find, and speaks to individuals involved privately (with perhaps a union rep, definitely not a lawyer present). The evidence may be presented in summary form in the final report, but individuals are not identified.
Yes, I think that is correct - the aim of the Inquiry should be to learn lessons which can be applied next time, and also allow better preparation before next time, but in practice is going to get bogged down in people hoping to make political capital out of it. I don't think a highly formalised judicial Inquiry like this was a good idea.
My assumption in this manoeuvrer is that there's some really bad sh*t about Rishi (and/or current cabinet members) that they don't want published. If it was pure Boris I suspect it'd have been handed over in a jiffy.
My assumption is none of them can remember what they said two or three years back and are worried something might turn up to embarrass them.
You can now get into colleges like Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford with just 3 Bs at A level if you are assessed as a 'disadvantaged' student who went to a state school. Cambridge doing similar
Also: both Cambridge and Oxford have been very happy to give EE offers to students who impressed enormously at interview. (And, indeed, I got a EE offer from UCL.)
Slacker. I got a UU offer from UCL.
For those who weren’t around in the 90s, UCL would do this with groups of students with very high predicted grades. According to a prof, the actual results didn’t drop off much, if at all.
Since I’d taken 2 A levels a year early, I got a place on the spot….
The boasting by @rcs1000 that his daughter is smarter than him is touching and lovely, until one remembers that @rcs1000 is basically a car park attendant. Then it is a tad less impressive
It's a form of false modesty and inverted boasting because rcs100 is well aware of regression to the mean, which implies - and he assumes we infer - that he's actually a tad brighter still.
You can now get into colleges like Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford with just 3 Bs at A level if you are assessed as a 'disadvantaged' student who went to a state school. Cambridge doing similar
Also: both Cambridge and Oxford have been very happy to give EE offers to students who impressed enormously at interview. (And, indeed, I got a EE offer from UCL.)
Slacker. I got a UU offer from UCL.
I got told it didn't matter what grades I got in anything or had ever got in anything, and that they'd accept me into Jesus College, Cambridge, regardless. Then again, I am a member of the royal family.
I like others got an EE offer from UCL - and I was determined to go to London - and so I thought fuck it. UCL it is. Slack off
I still had an interview at Bristol (then quite a snooty university) so I got my parents to give me the money for the train and all that, and instead went to a pub in Hereford and got drunk all day and played Space Invaders with some mates
I then wrote a dismissive letter to Bristol Uni saying, please consider me in absentia, I'm busy. Basically: fuck off
They still made me an offer. Two Ds. They really wanted me
All this makes me realise my 6th form teachers must have written an incredibly flattering profile of me, which I did not deserve, as I was a total drunken wastrel nearly expelled from my 6th form college for drinking and gambling on college premises, age 17
Comments
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
Again.
It’s a reminder that, whatever his relative virtues, he’s not actually up to it.
Get rid.
Civil servant who handed Boris diaries to police is related to Harriet Harman
https://twitter.com/fifisyms/status/1663605523285942279
Your point is?
Pause
The grandmother of the woman he was/is married to is the sister of either the father or the mother of Harriet Harman
or:
He is married to the first cousin once removed of Harriet Harman
A fraudster who posed as a cruise ship captain and conned £270,000 out of prospective holidaymakers has told a court that he can pay back only £350 to his victims.
Jody Oliver, 45, from Hereford, claimed to be the captain of a luxury liner that was offering cut-price holidays with a company called Carnival Cruises. He was said to have dressed as a captain and sent emails to himself from fake accounts that purported to be from Carnival employees.
Cardiff crown court was told that Oliver had also sent victims bills for £35 to cover invented excursions from the ship as it would sail around the Mediterranean. The entire venture was bogus, however, and that Oliver splurged hundreds of thousands of pounds on internet gambling, while also taking out payday loans.
He has been ordered to reimburse his victims but has told the court that only £350 of the £272,000 he swindled is left. Among his victims were pensioners who lost their savings after booking what they thought would be “once-in-a-lifetime” holidays.
Oliver, a former police special constable who was described as a Walter Mitty-style swindler, went to considerable lengths to maintain the ruse, dressing as a P&O captain to further his deceit.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cruise-ship-captain-conman-can-repay-only-350-0f-270-000-he-swindled-z8zh5hv2s
Again.
It’s a reminder that, whatever his personal merits, he adds nothing interesting or clever to PB debate.
He is best off going BTL at Guido Fawkes.
I’ll phrase it like this: it was not just Boris more than ready to take plaudits for vaccine roll out, it was his whole party - it’s not just Boris who should be ready to be accountable for all decisions and activity fighting covid, it’s his whole party. As Chancellor, Sunak was up to his eyebrows in decision making and activity fighting covid, without doubt trying to hide the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth from a public enquiry, without even offering a good reason why, Sunak is trying to save his own skin.
Penny Mourdant by Christmas is not as far fetched as some push on this forum.
I understand Harriet Harman once sat in a room with someone whose great uncle visited Berlin when Adolf Hitler was the Fuhrer. That’s why Hartiet Harman hates democracy. She should recuse herself from everything.
Imagine being Calgie. Imagine writing this shite.
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/1663608559945277442
Mr Chisholm is married to the cousin of Harriet Harman.
Nadine Dorries says: “Harriet Harman should recuse herself from the Privileges Committee kangaroo court. Failing that the Committee must completely reject the information Mr Chisholm handed to them.”
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1663576757260132352
His wife's father, Thomas Pakenham, is Hattie's cousin
As I noted last thread, the neo-liberal era is over.
After the death throes set in after 2008, it finally collapsed somewhere between the onset of Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Rishi Sunak thinks it is still 1991 or something.
He has nothing to offer the Britain of 2023.
Should that be an issue? Those were remarkable times and we need a proper study into what worked and what didn't, which preparations were made and which others were needed, the necessity or otherwise of some of the clearly damaging measures taken.
We need to meet the next such crisis with such lessons learned and it is very dangerous to assume we have a lot of time to do so. Frankly the failings (or otherwise) of Messrs Hunt and Sunak are very small beer compared to that. In a very few years they will both be a largely forgotten footnotes anyway.
There should be three forms of written communication allowed:
1. Email. Formal, recorded communication between ministers, and between ministers and civil servants.
2. Business Messaging application. Teams or Slack, records kept centrally, for interaction between ministers and civil servants.
3. Informal messaging application, Signal, messages set to automatically delete after 24 hours. Only to be used between ministers and their own staff, not permanent CS.
This stuff is IT management 101.
IT management 102, is dealing with the senior management who don’t want to follow the rules they want everyone else to follow!
But it appears rather that the British government now runs like a dodgy start-up which has run out of early stage funding due to the CEO’s coke habit.
The CFO has now taken over and realised that there’s no fucking viable product, never was any, and that they’re going to have to pivot.
But if he does, he loses his job…
I'm actually drawing the family tree for this.
I’ve no idea about the book, but I can confirm that Harriet Harman, via the Harmans, is also related to Keith Moon.
So I wonder if emotionally ministers are reluctant to give up WhatsApp, even if intellectually they know they should.
And what if, say, a junior requisitions officer in the HMRC office in Bootle needs to receive a phone call from their kid’s school, or needs to message someone to say they’ll be late home?
This is genuinely one of the maddest things I’ve read on here.
For those who weren’t around in the 90s, UCL would do this with groups of students with very high predicted grades. According to a prof, the actual results didn’t drop off much, if at all.
Since I’d taken 2 A levels a year early, I got a place on the spot….
I was however mostly referring to the Whitehall offices, rather than random non-customer-facing admin centres.
Most banks and trading companies will have similar rules, it’s not just a public-sector thing.
You simply divert your personal calls to your desk phone. If you want to call out - free from the desk phone.
Next time/if ever we get a Labour government, will there be any improvement in UK democracy by looking at party funding? Can Labour look into changing it for the better when up to their eyebrows in sleaze of the current political funding system in UK?
Especially you HorseBat, banging on it’s going to be hung parliament when seat predictors on current swing has majority in three figures - when in coalition with libdems Deputy Primeminister Davey asks for a fresh look at party funding, Labour will say no chance, we are having too much fun splashing around in the current sleazy system. You think that’s good?
Riz Possnett, a student activist is sitting in front of Prof Stock wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words “No More Dead Trans Kids”
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1663591273607966721?s=20
But the video is horrific. It’s bad enough having a junior minister wheeled out to do the interviews who is unwilling to step beyond their brief and so transparently parrots the sound bite they have been told to parrot.
But for the PM to do this? Makes you wonder who (if anyone) is in charge. Pathetic.
I had been on the fence about Sunak, but this interview is inexcusable in my view.
95% of the civil service has nowt to do with politics, and is about delivering public services. Why should they be punished because of a few morally incontinent ministers?
But for you that's akin to going in to work with a toy fish on your head, right?
Sir Desmond: If you're incompetent you have to be honest, and if you're crooked you have to be clever. See, if you're honest, then when you make a pig's breakfast of things the chaps rally round and help you out.
Sir Humphrey : If you're crooked?
Sir Desmond: Well, if you're making good profits for them, chaps don't start asking questions; they're not stupid. Well, not that stupid.
Sir Humphrey : So the ideal is a firm which is honest and clever.
Sir Desmond Glazebrook : Yes. Let me know if you ever come across one, won't you.
Rishi's problem is that he's not clever enough to get away with being crooked. Boris only got away with it for a while, and Rishi isn't as clever as Boris. Unfortunately, he's also not honest enough to get away with being incompetent.
The Conservative problem is that Rishi is certainly as good as they can do for now, and perhaps for a decade.
2) Pineapple on pizza - warcrime?
3) what is the one question Piers Corbyn is the answer to?
The problem is shitty MPs doing shitty things. They will find a way around it.
" Bloomberg has obtained written legal advice from the government‘s top lawyer Sir James Eadie KC to the Cabinet Office
It advises them NOT to hand over “politically sensitive” material about ministers’ private discussions to the Covid inquiry.
Eadie advised that disclosing “politically sensitive” material to the inquiry on discussions between ministers would breach Cabinet collective responsibility, which allows confidentiality to debate policy."
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1663595047894372352
Admittedly that seems to make a nonsense of the Inquiry, but that perhaps reflects the fact that an Inquiry like this, into politically-charged events at the heart of government, is problematic so soon after the events.
That said, Sunak's interview does show a weakness. He adopts a position he thinks logical, but doesn't have the fluent ease in diverting the discussion that most politicians acquire. In a way it does him credit, but he'll get eaten up in debates.
Ah yes but Boris Johnson's godmother is the aunt of Chisholm's wife. So it all evens out.
The fact of the pandemic, meant that a lot of conversations that would happen in person between two individuals, ended up happening electronically, and therefore were recorded somewhere.
The remit of the inquiry, needs to be focussed on what went right and what didn’t, and on how disaster plans should be updated to better cope with the next pandemic. It should explicitly not seek to blame individuals.
The template should be a transport accident inquiry, where the inquiry takes as much physical and electronic evidence as they can find, and speaks to individuals involved privately (with perhaps a union rep, definitely not a lawyer present). The evidence may be presented in summary form in the final report, but individuals are not identified.
https://twitter.com/TPointUK/status/1663609367835312131
The simple question remains - why should anyone vote for him or the Conservatives next year? All you seem to have is the nonsense that "Labour would be worse" - perhaps, but after 13 years of the same party leading the Government and a list of accomplishments which would fill a medium sized water biscuit, simply trying to claim the other lot would be worse has to punch well above its weight.
Probably for some small groups both personally, professionally and politically there'll be some genuinely useful nuggets that come from the report, but mostly this is just the price that needs to be paid to get through the crisis at the time i.e. do whatever you do during it and mollify people with the promise of the inquiry later when the world's mostly moved on.
In any case we already know what the most important lesson is: don't choose a dishonest charlatan with the attention span of a gnat and an incorrigible refusal to take anything seriously as PM.
I can only assume that his arrogant belief in his own immunity to the rules that little people have to follow is the cause of this issue arising.
I can't see what Sunak gets out of obstructing the enquiry though.
It’d take out a good chunk of the current cabinet and all..
In fact Durham, St Andrews, Edinburgh, Exeter, Imperial and UCL now have more ex private school pupils as undergraduates than Oxford or Cambridge do
https://thetab.com/uk/2022/09/16/these-are-the-universities-with-the-most-private-school-students-2022-273947
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1663011242074677248
He's just batting on a very sticky wicket as a bit of nightwatchman and people are calling him "shit" because they want to twist the knife in the carcass of the Conservative Party.
I get that visceral partisan desire, but it doesn't mean he's not good.
I think Labour will increase tax still further, nanny and regulate me further, and deteriorate the public finances further by punting out fiscal balance - I have no appetite for that.
In order not to disappoint @MoonRabbit, a quick take on tonight's "Red Wall" which has something for everyone. The numbers from a fortnight ago did look a bit frothy but tonight's numbers still represent a 13% swing from Conservative to Labour.
Last night's wider GB poll from R&W had a 13.5% swing from Conservative to Labour.
As a contrast, last week's GB poll had a Con-Lab swing of 12% and the "Blue Wall" had a swing of 14% from Conservative to Labour so it's still sitting fairly comfortably with a national swing of 12-13% and the swings in the respective "Walls" much the same.
What we've yet to see is the impact of tactical voting - according to last week's R&W Blue Wall polling, two thirds of LD voters would consider a tactical vote as would just over half of Labour's voters.
Don't know about live. I assume twitter. I'll have a quick look.
No one understands what once removed means anyway.
The Blue Wall has a number of Conservative-Labour marginals as well as Conservative-LD marginals and I'm sure a number of these would be vulnerable on a 14% swing which takes us to the 174th most marginal Conservative seat so a result closer to 2005 than 2001 or 1997 until we factor in tactical voting which could mean two thirds of LD voters and half of Labour voters switching tactically to unseat an incumbent Conservative.
In today's day we shut down anyone who wants to speak out against Juche.
That's how it's done, old boy.
Correction - I mean 180
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-red-wall-voting-intention-28-may-2023/
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-blue-wall-voting-intention-22-may-2023/
South Africa is going to change its law so that it has the power to decide whether or not to arrest a leader wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), a deputy minister has told the BBC.
Earlier this year, Russia’s leader was invited to a summit in South Africa, but a subsequent arrest warrant issued by the ICC means South Africa would be expected to arrest Vladimir Putin if he attends the gathering of the Brics group of nations in August.
“In June we'll be submitting the law in parliament,” Obed Bapela, a deputy minister in the South African presidency, told the BBC’s Newshour programme.
Through the law South Africa "will give itself exemptions of who to arrest and who not to arrest", Mr Bapela said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-africa-65361205?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=64761bce3d616e0a28d068a7&South Africa to change law to stop arrest of Putin&2023-05-30T16:30:28.324Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:005fa370-a777-409e-bed0-f6ffc7bfd80a&pinned_post_asset_id=64761bce3d616e0a28d068a7&pinned_post_type=share
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/world-news/climate-protesters-left-cold-dark-25318066
I struggle to see how much empathy he really has with ordinary people - he may surprise me come the election as Major did in 1992.
The problem he has is the Party he leads - I cannot see how anyone can contemplate voting for the Conservative Party after the way elements of the party (by no means all) have comported themselves in recent times and the emergence of the immigration fault line within the party is going to make herding cats seem easy.
As to what Labour will do, I can't answer that. I might well agree we are over-taxed and certainly we are over-regulated but the current Conservative Party has to take plenty of the blame and, I would argue, for all the notion of regulation, the real transfer of power since 2019 has been from Westminster to Whitehall. Ministers have played fast and loose with Parliament and Parliamentary scrutiny - how that is in any way defensible, especially by those who proclaimed the victory of "sovereignty" when we left the EU is beyond me.
I didn't support the repatriation of powers from Brussels to see those powers end up in Whitehall. Did you?
I still had an interview at Bristol (then quite a snooty university) so I got my parents to give me the money for the train and all that, and instead went to a pub in Hereford and got drunk all day and played Space Invaders with some mates
I then wrote a dismissive letter to Bristol Uni saying, please consider me in absentia, I'm busy. Basically: fuck off
They still made me an offer. Two Ds. They really wanted me
All this makes me realise my 6th form teachers must have written an incredibly flattering profile of me, which I did not deserve, as I was a total drunken wastrel nearly expelled from my 6th form college for drinking and gambling on college premises, age 17
Scenes, eh, scenes