Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
La Repubblica: "This is Boris's final revenge on David," one Tory MP told the Financial Times. "There's nothing to please Johnson," echoed a former minister from the same party, both on condition of anonymity, "like being able to push Cameron under a bus."
The way he looks, sounds and dresses is at least 40 years out of date; like he's a junior minister that's been plucked out of Wilson's cabinet of 1975 and temporally transported to 2021.
Hopefully he'll give us an update on the Ford strike and the situation in Biafra before Pot Black comes on.
Boris Johnson will lose the trust of former Labour voters who helped put him in Downing Street unless he tackles the burgeoning sleaze crisis now threatening to engulf his government and the Whitehall machine, a leading Tory says today.
The warning from Sir Bernard Jenkin, chair of the powerful Commons liaison committee, is evidence of mounting concern in Conservative ranks about the potential electoral damage to the Tory party, particularly in so called “red wall” seats, from any further revelations like the David Cameron lobbying scandal.
Keep up. Tory sleaze is all down to Labour spies in the Civil Service, not actual Tory sleaze.
A network of Labour Party 'spies' is operating at the heart of Whitehall, feeding secret information to Sir Keir Starmer's team to destabilise the Government, senior Tory sources claim.
But that is good news, isn't it? Somebody has to keep the Conservative Party honest - or at least try to.
In the Good Old Days it used to be the Conservative MPs - them and the sense of duty and innate honesty of the Conserative leaders.
Hmmm. The good old days were not perhaps all they were cracked up to be. I would, for example, like to know where that £5 million Heath left in his will came from.
I mean the very good old days, Dr Ydoethur. When Conservatives were honest.
So pre-Reginald Maudling then?
Reggie and John Polson were merely envelopes that passed in the night.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
CNN: Washington DC's reputation for influential lobbyists is obviously justified. If it wasn't, Trump's anti-swamp rhetoric wouldn't have found such a keen audience. But in reality, for all the money that exists in American politics, the UK trails behind when it comes to stamping down on this type of grubbiness.
In the US they are just much more open about taking donations in exchange for favours. They have to: as an extreme example in the recent Senate run off in Georgia each candidate spent about the same amount of money as all the UK parties combined did on the last GE.
The way he looks, sounds and dresses is at least 40 years out of date; like he's a junior minister that's been plucked out of Wilson's cabinet of 1975 and temporally transported to 2021.
Hopefully he'll give us an update on the Ford strike and the situation in Biafra before Pot Black comes on.
"For those watching in black and white the pink ball is the one behind the brown." They don't make them like that anymore.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard, Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?
Families often gift shares to each other
This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?
Families often gift shares to each other
This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract
People dont often give away 15% of their company, even to a sibling, with no expectations of them contributing.
The noted Cymru-phobe TSE speaks on Wales .... help.
Cardiff has been moving steadily towards Labour, unlike most of the rest of Wales. At Westminster, Cardiff North was usually a Tory seat (since 1950). It now is becoming pretty safe for Labour (~7000 majority in a poor year for Labour of 2019). Cardiff West which the Tories took in the landslide of 1983 is now well, well beyond them. It includes affluent areas like Pontcanna, which is chock-full of University Professors and Welsh media/broadcasting types. These groups have moved away from the Tories in recent years.
At the Senedd elections in 2016, the Cardiff West Plaid Cymru candidate Neil McEvoy surprisingly ran Drakeford very close.
McEvoy was formerly Labour, and had a profile as a combative local Councillor on Cardiff Council. He is a maverick, but has a strong local following -- for example, he has spearheaded a number of local & highly visible campaigns, such as to stop radioactive mud from Hinkley Point being dumped in Cardiff bay. This is the reason why the Cardiff West result was close -- a popular, articulate and highly visible local candidate added to the Plaid Cymru support in the seat.
Since then, McEvoy fell out with Plaid Cymru and founded his own party (Propel) under whose banner he is running in Cardiff West in 2021. There was some discussion in Plaid Cymru about standing down in Cardiff West, but in the end the discord between McEvoy and Plaid Cymru prevailed and so both are running.
If only one of McEvoy or Plaid Cymru was running, then Drakeford would probably have a real fight on his hands. But they are both running. So, my guess is that Drakeford will win by a few thousand, McEvoy for Propel will come second, but further behind than in 2016.
It will be very close between Plaid Cymru and the Tories for third and fourth.
It is wrong to apply uniform national swings to this seat -- Plaid Cymru are very unlikely to win, as are the Tories. In fact, it is possible that the Tory vote may even be squeezed in Cardiff West, so they fall further behind than in 2016.
Great header. I have for a while thought we were looking at an Andrew RT Davies First Ministership. Despite what the polls say, Johnson vaccinated the nation, and Drakeford closed the pubs (and they are still closed) is the anecdotal response from voters. There is a lot of personal animosity towards 'teetotal' Drakeford on the latter point. I am hoping however that the Conservative corruption crisis will at least avert that calamity.
My.money is now on a Labour/PC arrangement, but Drakeford could certainly be a casualty and the Conservatives being biggest party in both votes and seats is not beyond the realms of probability.
RT just given a strong performance on Marr, saying his party will oppose independence for Wales while focusing on better delivery from the Senedd rather than outright abolition
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?
Families often gift shares to each other
This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract
People dont often give away 15% of their company, even to a sibling, with no expectations of them contributing.
Le Pen isn’t value in the French election because although she’s likely to make the final two, around 60% of the electorate will back her opponent - whoever that is - to keep her out.
According to des sondages the only candidate Le Pen can beat in the final round is Hidalgo. So you'd basically be betting that Hidalgo will make it to the last two at the expense of Macron. That needs bigger odds than 3/1.
Le Pen also beats Melenchon 60% to 40%, Macron beats Le Pen 54% to 46%
There is much about national government, regional government, local government, large infrastructure projects, that is deeply grubby. It is filled with nepotism, favouritism, deferred employment opportunities ("do us a favour now and in a couple of years time, join us on the Board as Director of Corporate Hospitality - golf club membership of your choice thrown in....") topped with a dash of out-and-out corruption at its worst.
Unfortunately, it is the norm. Show me a government since Roman times that didn't operate this way. You may hope for better, but power attracts lobbying - because money sees it as the way of getting its way.
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
It really isn't ( yet). I think you are comforting yourself with wishful thinking.
This episode would be a massively embarrassing episode that could fell any previous government, but this is a Boris Johnson Government, so none of this might gain any traction whatsoever, and we just blame Cameron, Blair, Clegg and their coalition of corrupt wokery.
There is much about national government, regional government, local government, large infrastructure projects, that is deeply grubby. It is filled with nepotism, favouritism, deferred employment opportunities ("do us a favour now and in a couple of years time, join us on the Board as Director of Corporate Hospitality - golf club membership of your choice thrown in....") topped with a dash of out-and-out corruption at its worst.
Unfortunately, it is the norm. Show me a government since Roman times that didn't operate this way. You may hope for better, but power attracts lobbying - because money sees it as the way of getting its way.
Agreed, but it needs a sweep every decade or two. It won't stop it, but it can stop it getting worse and worse.
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
It really isn't ( yet). I think you are comforting yourself with wishful thinking.
This episode would be a massively embarrassing episode that could fell any previous government, but this is a Boris Johnson Government, so none of this might gain any traction whatsoever, and we just blame Cameron, Blair, Clegg and their coalition of corrupt wokery.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?
Families often gift shares to each other
This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract
People dont often give away 15% of their company, even to a sibling, with no expectations of them contributing.
There is much about national government, regional government, local government, large infrastructure projects, that is deeply grubby. It is filled with nepotism, favouritism, deferred employment opportunities ("do us a favour now and in a couple of years time, join us on the Board as Director of Corporate Hospitality - golf club membership of your choice thrown in....") topped with a dash of out-and-out corruption at its worst.
Unfortunately, it is the norm. Show me a government since Roman times that didn't operate this way. You may hope for better, but power attracts lobbying - because money sees it as the way of getting its way.
Processes designed to reduce this also have the side-effect of making it hard to respond to edge cases in a humane way as it is difficult to distinguish between that and doing a favour for someone.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?
Families often gift shares to each other
This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract
People dont often give away 15% of their company, even to a sibling, with no expectations of them contributing.
Sorry but that is nonsense
Tax 'fiddle'?????
I would not suggest that it was anything but legitimate
Well I never expected to wake up and find a thread on my own constituency! I see you didn't mention Neil McEvoy factor - look him up online he's a most entertaining figure. His high profile may have helped Plaid get so close in 2016 but he's now in danger of splitting their vote with his new movement. There's weird parallel with Salmond.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?
Families often gift shares to each other
This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract
People dont often give away 15% of their company, even to a sibling, with no expectations of them contributing.
Sorry but that is nonsense
Tax 'fiddle'?????
I would not suggest that it was anything but legitimate
Unless it was a Labour politico in which case you would.
"Asked whether Labour, if it is returned to power after May's Senedd election, would introduce an official lobbyists' register, Mr Gething responded: "I'm entirely open about it because I think what we'd need to do is try to have some consensus between parties to have effective rules that we all live by and all govern by."
Well, that is an brilliantly obscure answer from Vaughan Gething.
Is it 'Yes' or 'No' ?
Are Welsh Labour going to introduce the minimal standards present in Westminster or Holyrood. Or are they not?
The way he looks, sounds and dresses is at least 40 years out of date; like he's a junior minister that's been plucked out of Wilson's cabinet of 1975 and temporally transported to 2021.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?
Families often gift shares to each other
This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract
People dont often give away 15% of their company, even to a sibling, with no expectations of them contributing.
Sorry but that is nonsense
Tax 'fiddle'?????
I would not suggest that it was anything but legitimate
Unless it was a Labour politico in which case you would.
Great header. I have for a while thought we were looking at an Andrew RT Davies First Ministership. Despite what the polls say, Johnson vaccinated the nation, and Drakeford closed the pubs (and they are still closed) is the anecdotal response from voters. There is a lot of personal animosity towards 'teetotal' Drakeford on the latter point. I am hoping however that the Conservative corruption crisis will at least avert that calamity.
My.money is now on a Labour/PC arrangement, but Drakeford could certainly be a casualty and the Conservatives being biggest party in both votes and seats is not beyond the realms of probability.
RT just given a strong performance on Marr, saying his party will oppose independence for Wales while focusing on better delivery from the Senedd rather than outright abolition
I haven't seen it, so my commentary is based purely on my absolute and utter disdain and loathing for RT.
Forgive me while, in my best West Midlands brogue I quote Mandy Rice Davies, and claim you are Lord Astor!
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
It is a document shredding firm so I'm not sure I would have instantly thought "health-related" when discussing them.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Is it "health-related share-ownings"?
It is a document shredding company.
Presumably the contract was awarded by NHS Wales to the lowest bidder.
If there is evidence that this is not the case, than it should be presented.
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
Marr was very aggressive with Davey. But Davey dealt with it well.
Davey has a lobbying contract with a renewables company. He believes in the cause. He doesn't lobby government. His interest is openly declared in members' interests. He needs the money to support his disabled son when Davey dies.
But Marr had successfully deflected Davey from criticising the government.
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
Marr was very aggressive with Davey. But Davey dealt with it well.
Davey has a lobbying contract with a renewables company. He believes in the cause. He doesn't lobby government. His interest is openly declared in members' interests. He needs the money to support his disabled son when Davey dies.
But Marr had successfully deflected Davey from criticising the government.
Marr's aggressive interviews with Reeves and Davey were unexpected and in Reeves case, made her look evasive and uncomfortable
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Thanks for the geography lesson!
I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.
My point was that whether justified or not, Ministers would be well-advised to avoid perceived (not real) conflicts of interest. But who am I to give advice to Tories?
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Exactly. The NHS Wales is using a company based in Wales, supporting Welsh jobs & paying Welsh business rates.
There is plenty of corruption in Wales if the London media are interested in looking for it. But this does not look like corruption.
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
Marr was very aggressive with Davey. But Davey dealt with it well.
Davey has a lobbying contract with a renewables company. He believes in the cause. He doesn't lobby government. His interest is openly declared in members' interests. He needs the money to support his disabled son when Davey dies.
But Marr had successfully deflected Davey from criticising the government.
The thing is, most (though I'm sure not all) of the stories about the government also have reasonable explanations like his when examined closely. Perhaps his own experience of virtuous lobbying (and the criticism it attracts from the press) will make him more open the idea that others may be in a similar position?
Good thread and while I do not expect Drakeford to lose his seat he has recently caused annoyance by being behind England in opening up businesses and those living on the borders have been crossing into England to enjoy their pint while the business owners in Wales suffer and plead to open the Welsh econony
Also labour have been in power for 22 years since devolution and poverty in Wales is as bad as ever as is the health service and education
My granddaughter was top student in her year last year and has been told that due to deprivation in part of her post code and the poor achievement level of her school she is guaranteed a place in the university of her choice
Wales needs a new start but I am not expecting a conservative led Senedd partly due to Andrew RT Davies who is a poor conservatives leader
I think if Labour hold any constituency outside the valleys - and that includes Llanelli - that’s an underachievement by Plaid and the Tories.
But they still might well hang on to one or two in the north east - Vale of Clwyd and Clwyd South both have local factors working in their favour - and the way Llanelli is churning right now the result is anyone’s guess.
Old loyalties die hard, and then go suddenly, as we saw in 2015 and 2019. But I don’t see that Labour are at quite that stage in Wales yet.
“How did you go bankrupt?" Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Thanks for the geography lesson!
I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.
My point was that whether justified or not, Ministers would be well-advised to avoid perceived (not real) conflicts of interest. But who am I to give advice to Tories?
To be honest as long as a contract is awarded on the best product, service and price then anything else is noise
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Thanks for the geography lesson!
I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.
Of course it is not "marginally relevant". Unless you think Wales is part of England.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Thanks for the geography lesson!
I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.
My point was that whether justified or not, Ministers would be well-advised to avoid perceived (not real) conflicts of interest. But who am I to give advice to Tories?
To be honest as long as a contract is awarded on the best product, service and price then anything else is noise
IANAL but good luck using that as a defence under the Bribery Act. Not guilty because I (or they) would have won the contract anyway.
Boris Johnson will lose the trust of former Labour voters who helped put him in Downing Street unless he tackles the burgeoning sleaze crisis now threatening to engulf his government and the Whitehall machine, a leading Tory says today.
The warning from Sir Bernard Jenkin, chair of the powerful Commons liaison committee, is evidence of mounting concern in Conservative ranks about the potential electoral damage to the Tory party, particularly in so called “red wall” seats, from any further revelations like the David Cameron lobbying scandal.
Keep up. Tory sleaze is all down to Labour spies in the Civil Service, not actual Tory sleaze.
A network of Labour Party 'spies' is operating at the heart of Whitehall, feeding secret information to Sir Keir Starmer's team to destabilise the Government, senior Tory sources claim.
But that is good news, isn't it? Somebody has to keep the Conservative Party honest - or at least try to.
In the Good Old Days it used to be the Conservative MPs - them and the sense of duty and innate honesty of the Conserative leaders.
Hmmm. The good old days were not perhaps all they were cracked up to be. I would, for example, like to know where that £5 million Heath left in his will came from.
Did he collect green shield stamps?
The story was that he got inside info on the stock market about takeovers from Jim Slater. Jim Slater's business partner was Peter Walker the Tory MP and goverment minister.
The way he looks, sounds and dresses is at least 40 years out of date; like he's a junior minister that's been plucked out of Wilson's cabinet of 1975 and temporally transported to 2021.
Hopefully he'll give us an update on the Ford strike and the situation in Biafra before Pot Black comes on.
"For those watching in black and white the pink ball is the one behind the brown." They don't make them like that anymore.
Confusion over the pink and brown blighted a whole generation of British youth.
Boris Johnson will lose the trust of former Labour voters who helped put him in Downing Street unless he tackles the burgeoning sleaze crisis now threatening to engulf his government and the Whitehall machine, a leading Tory says today.
The warning from Sir Bernard Jenkin, chair of the powerful Commons liaison committee, is evidence of mounting concern in Conservative ranks about the potential electoral damage to the Tory party, particularly in so called “red wall” seats, from any further revelations like the David Cameron lobbying scandal.
Keep up. Tory sleaze is all down to Labour spies in the Civil Service, not actual Tory sleaze.
A network of Labour Party 'spies' is operating at the heart of Whitehall, feeding secret information to Sir Keir Starmer's team to destabilise the Government, senior Tory sources claim.
But that is good news, isn't it? Somebody has to keep the Conservative Party honest - or at least try to.
In the Good Old Days it used to be the Conservative MPs - them and the sense of duty and innate honesty of the Conserative leaders.
Hmmm. The good old days were not perhaps all they were cracked up to be. I would, for example, like to know where that £5 million Heath left in his will came from.
Did he collect green shield stamps?
The story was that he got inside info on the stock market about takeovers from Jim Slater. Jim Slater's business partner was Peter Walker the Tory MP and goverment minister.
IANA financial historian but iirc insider dealing was legal in the good old days, wasn't it?
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Thanks for the geography lesson!
I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.
My point was that whether justified or not, Ministers would be well-advised to avoid perceived (not real) conflicts of interest. But who am I to give advice to Tories?
To be honest as long as a contract is awarded on the best product, service and price then anything else is noise
IANAL but good luck using that as a defence under the Bribery Act. Not guilty because I (or they) would have won the contract anyway.
That's the point isn't it. At one point a couple of years ago there was a possibility that my two sons could do business with each other, in the sense that Son 2 had a product which the company of which Son 1 was a director might buy. Son 2 passed the marketing opportunity over to a colleague and Son 1 kept right away from any discussion about purchasing. It wasn't really his field, but he made sure he had nothing to do with any discussions.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Thanks for the geography lesson!
I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.
Of course it is not "marginally relevant". Unless you think Wales is part of England.
You've conveniently deleted my final sentence, but hey ho.
You might want to review the, erm, snooker joke you made a couple of comments back. Even the Duke of Edinburgh might have blanched at that, at least post-1970.
Boris Johnson will lose the trust of former Labour voters who helped put him in Downing Street unless he tackles the burgeoning sleaze crisis now threatening to engulf his government and the Whitehall machine, a leading Tory says today.
The warning from Sir Bernard Jenkin, chair of the powerful Commons liaison committee, is evidence of mounting concern in Conservative ranks about the potential electoral damage to the Tory party, particularly in so called “red wall” seats, from any further revelations like the David Cameron lobbying scandal.
Keep up. Tory sleaze is all down to Labour spies in the Civil Service, not actual Tory sleaze.
A network of Labour Party 'spies' is operating at the heart of Whitehall, feeding secret information to Sir Keir Starmer's team to destabilise the Government, senior Tory sources claim.
But that is good news, isn't it? Somebody has to keep the Conservative Party honest - or at least try to.
In the Good Old Days it used to be the Conservative MPs - them and the sense of duty and innate honesty of the Conserative leaders.
Hmmm. The good old days were not perhaps all they were cracked up to be. I would, for example, like to know where that £5 million Heath left in his will came from.
Did he collect green shield stamps?
The story was that he got inside info on the stock market about takeovers from Jim Slater. Jim Slater's business partner was Peter Walker the Tory MP and goverment minister.
IANA financial historian but iirc insider dealing was legal in the good old days, wasn't it?
It's been illegal since 1980. Heath was probably doing nothing illegal at the time.
You might want to review the, erm, snooker joke you made a couple of comments back. Even the Duke of Edinburgh might have blanched at that, at least post-1970.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
And that is the point that is being missed
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
Thanks for the geography lesson!
I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.
Of course it is not "marginally relevant". Unless you think Wales is part of England.
You've conveniently deleted my final sentence, but hey ho.
Hey, ho.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
There is much about national government, regional government, local government, large infrastructure projects, that is deeply grubby. It is filled with nepotism, favouritism, deferred employment opportunities ("do us a favour now and in a couple of years time, join us on the Board as Director of Corporate Hospitality - golf club membership of your choice thrown in....") topped with a dash of out-and-out corruption at its worst.
Unfortunately, it is the norm. Show me a government since Roman times that didn't operate this way. You may hope for better, but power attracts lobbying - because money sees it as the way of getting its way.
Agreed, but it needs a sweep every decade or two. It won't stop it, but it can stop it getting worse and worse.
Ironic that it was Cameron who used the phrase "‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant’ regarding MPs expenses. Some bright light needed in the crooks and na...nooks and crannies.
It's said that the way to keep spiders away is to scatter conkers about. We've had very few since putting a couple outside our front door. Need replacing in autumn, of course.
My Nan used to swear by this. When it came to nature she knew her stuff, she could even make an intoxicating drink from dandelions.
Hence your nom de plume? One can of course ferment almost anything,particularly vegetable. Some commentator on the TV the other day was talking bewailing the lack of cowslips to make cowslip wine.
When I started going to Lancashire I discover3ed that some of my prospective relations drank a (non-alcoholic) brew called dandelion and burdock.
Dandelion and Burdock was my favourite drink as a youngster. That and Sarsaparilla.
I enquired about Sarsparilla at the Last Temperance Bar in Lancashire, and it seems to have a lot of carb in it. So, off my agenda.
You might want to review the, erm, snooker joke you made a couple of comments back. Even the Duke of Edinburgh might have blanched at that, at least post-1970.
Good job I’m not representing anyone except myself in an obscure wee corner of the internet rather than the UK on the world stage.
In any case I’m a much bigger fan of puerile smut than racism.
It's said that the way to keep spiders away is to scatter conkers about. We've had very few since putting a couple outside our front door. Need replacing in autumn, of course.
My Nan used to swear by this. When it came to nature she knew her stuff, she could even make an intoxicating drink from dandelions.
Yes - correct.
I was picking up a few every year or two for my mum until she died in 2019.
There is much about national government, regional government, local government, large infrastructure projects, that is deeply grubby. It is filled with nepotism, favouritism, deferred employment opportunities ("do us a favour now and in a couple of years time, join us on the Board as Director of Corporate Hospitality - golf club membership of your choice thrown in....") topped with a dash of out-and-out corruption at its worst.
Unfortunately, it is the norm. Show me a government since Roman times that didn't operate this way. You may hope for better, but power attracts lobbying - because money sees it as the way of getting its way.
Agreed, but it needs a sweep every decade or two. It won't stop it, but it can stop it getting worse and worse.
Ironic that it was Cameron who used the phrase "‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant’ regarding MPs expenses. Some bright light needed in the crooks and na...nooks and crannies.
Yes. Cameron's is the most disappointing of the recent examples, both given his prior comments and that he was worth approx £40m already.
It's said that the way to keep spiders away is to scatter conkers about. We've had very few since putting a couple outside our front door. Need replacing in autumn, of course.
My Nan used to swear by this. When it came to nature she knew her stuff, she could even make an intoxicating drink from dandelions.
Hence your nom de plume? One can of course ferment almost anything,particularly vegetable. Some commentator on the TV the other day was talking bewailing the lack of cowslips to make cowslip wine.
When I started going to Lancashire I discover3ed that some of my prospective relations drank a (non-alcoholic) brew called dandelion and burdock.
You can make dandelion wine just as you can make elderflower wine.
Subtle fleg placement on the BA rudder. Nice that SKS is putting national recovery in Scotland ABOVE ALL ELSE, though I’m not sure if I really believe him.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
It's said that the way to keep spiders away is to scatter conkers about. We've had very few since putting a couple outside our front door. Need replacing in autumn, of course.
My Nan used to swear by this. When it came to nature she knew her stuff, she could even make an intoxicating drink from dandelions.
Hence your nom de plume? One can of course ferment almost anything,particularly vegetable. Some commentator on the TV the other day was talking bewailing the lack of cowslips to make cowslip wine.
When I started going to Lancashire I discover3ed that some of my prospective relations drank a (non-alcoholic) brew called dandelion and burdock.
You can make dandelion wine just as you can make elderflower wine.
But you should be aware that another name for the dandelion is pissabed. It is a potent diuretic.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
To be fair, I don't think anyone here has denied that there's something whiffy about Welsh Labour. Sadly.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
To be fair, I don't think anyone here has denied that there's something whiffy about Welsh Labour. Sadly.
It is not unreasonable to expect the Labour Party & its supporters to take some responsibility for Welsh Labour and for the dereliction of Wales.
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
It really isn't ( yet). I think you are comforting yourself with wishful thinking.
This episode would be a massively embarrassing episode that could fell any previous government, but this is a Boris Johnson Government, so none of this might gain any traction whatsoever, and we just blame Cameron, Blair, Clegg and their coalition of corrupt wokery.
Not really
Maybe watch Marr on playback
I thought Marr was rather soft, but then he usually is.
Brillo would have read the lettter out to Rachel Reeves where she demanded that cosideration for COVID contracts be given to a whole series of questionable copanies.
Surprised that Davey did not point out the LD role in seting up the 2011 rules, whilst saying it is now time to go further.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
I think that's very true. Hancock has never struck me as the brightest light in the show, in fact he is by normal standards rather dim, which is terrifying given how much power we have given him and his advisors over the last year. I don't think he's personally corrupt or actively malevolent though.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
The problem with the latter is that, given the size and scope of the NHS and what it buys, you’re basically saying the Health Secretary must not knowingly own shares in ANY company (including taking an interest in, for example, a pension portfolio).
However, under our system, ministerial roles change frequently and unexpectedly, so you’d have to say that no one who MIGHT become Health Secretary can have any active interest in shares.
All in a model where ministers don’t take decisions on contracts.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
The problem with the latter is that, given the size and scope of the NHS and what it buys, you’re basically saying the Health Secretary must not knowingly own shares in ANY company (including taking an interest in, for example, a pension portfolio).
However, under our system, ministerial roles change frequently and unexpectedly, so you’d have to say that no one who MIGHT become Health Secretary can have any active interest in shares.
All in a model where ministers don’t take decisions on contracts.
Isn't this why American politicians use blind trusts?
London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
Marr was very aggressive with Davey. But Davey dealt with it well.
Davey has a lobbying contract with a renewables company. He believes in the cause. He doesn't lobby government. His interest is openly declared in members' interests. He needs the money to support his disabled son when Davey dies.
But Marr had successfully deflected Davey from criticising the government.
The thing is, most (though I'm sure not all) of the stories about the government also have reasonable explanations like his when examined closely. Perhaps his own experience of virtuous lobbying (and the criticism it attracts from the press) will make him more open the idea that others may be in a similar position?
The difference is the others have not been transparent, which makes it look like they have something to hide.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
The problem with the latter is that, given the size and scope of the NHS and what it buys, you’re basically saying the Health Secretary must not knowingly own shares in ANY company (including taking an interest in, for example, a pension portfolio).
However, under our system, ministerial roles change frequently and unexpectedly, so you’d have to say that no one who MIGHT become Health Secretary can have any active interest in shares.
All in a model where ministers don’t take decisions on contracts.
It isn't that difficult. I see no issue with a pension fund. I thought it normal that ministers investments went into a blind trust to prevent this issue arising. Also this investment was obvious and significant, not one that was easy to miss. He even sought approval which he got. Why it was approved I don't know which seems to be a weakness in the system.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
From what I understand no rules were broken. But "Is it legal?" is not the only question which should be asked. The second question is "Is it wise?"
Why the need to gift these shares now? Why a gift? Might it have been wiser to do this when Hancock had stopped being a Minister?
To ask these questions is not to accuse people of corruption. But it is to probe whether those in public office are really thinking about the wisdom and probity of what they are doing and trying their hardest to be whiter than white. And from the PM down it really does not appear that they really give a damn about such considerations (even if this case appears to be a non-story).
The answers are all very self-serving and technical: "it was only a technical breach", "where does it say that I can't do that", "everyone else is doing it", "I told people" etc. It is all a bit reminiscent of the sorts of excuses I used to get from traders.
People will give credit to someone getting something wrong if they believe that overall the government is trying hard to behave with integrity. But that belief that this government is one with integrity is not there. So every small story and even ones which don't have much substance add to a general picture of a government where people appear to be in it for what they and their friends can get out of it. Voters may tolerate that while they too are getting something out of it. But when the latter stops, the reaction can be vicious.
See the finance industry for an example of what I mean.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
1. There is no evidence that there is any corruption in the Great Wrecsam paper shredding story. It has generated hundreds of posts on pb.com.
2. By contrast, a massive fraud like the purchase of a failing airport by the Welsh Government for 52 million pounds (at the same time the Scottish Government bought a failing airport for £1) received hardly any notice. I'll warrant no pb-er even was aware of this dodgy business before I mentioned it. I'll also warrant that few pb-ers knew that the Labour controlled Senedd is the only Parliament without a register of lobbyists.
There are big crooks, little crooks and people who aren't crooks.
Why do the big crooks get no attention? And the people who aren't crooks (I am not even convinced that Hancock has done anything wrong, it is the Welsh NHS that gave the contract) get hundreds of posts?
It looks as though the people criticising Hancock aren't really interested in corruption.
Because if they were, they'd be going after much bigger targets.
And if Labour were interested in fighting corruption, instead of scoring petty points, there would actually be a register of lobbyists in the Senedd (like in Westminster and Holyrood). They STILLL have not committed to this.
London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.
In May and June it might be warm enough to put ice cream in your Guinness. Embrace your inner child! (And hold the glass the right way up.)
London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.
In May and June it might be warm enough to put ice cream in your Guinness. Embrace your inner child! (And hold the glass the right way up.)
I didn't think there was anything worse than pineapple on pizza.
London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.
In May and June it might be warm enough to put ice cream in your Guinness. Embrace your inner child! (And hold the glass the right way up.)
I didn't think there was anything worse than pineapple on pizza.
But now!!!!!!
A quick Google search got this recipe for Guiness ice cream:
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
The problem with the latter is that, given the size and scope of the NHS and what it buys, you’re basically saying the Health Secretary must not knowingly own shares in ANY company (including taking an interest in, for example, a pension portfolio).
However, under our system, ministerial roles change frequently and unexpectedly, so you’d have to say that no one who MIGHT become Health Secretary can have any active interest in shares.
All in a model where ministers don’t take decisions on contracts.
A procurement department is an interesting suggestion.
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
The BBC are all of a panic. How do they remain impartial when they have a Government scandal to report?
It's like Johnson and the Cenotaph. The BBC can't report Johnson being a dick, that would be partial, so they substitute footage of him being a cock, with old footage of him not being a cock. Impartiality equilibrium restored.
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
1. There is no evidence that there is any corruption in the Great Wrecsam paper shredding story. It has generated hundreds of posts on pb.com.
2. By contrast, a massive fraud like the purchase of a failing airport by the Welsh Government for 52 million pounds (at the same time the Scottish Government bought a failing airport for £1) received hardly any notice. I'll warrant no pb-er even was aware of this dodgy business before I mentioned it. I'll also warrant that few pb-ers knew that the Labour controlled Senedd is the only Parliament without a register of lobbyists.
There are big crooks, little crooks and people who aren't crooks.
Why do the big crooks get no attention? And the people who aren't crooks (I am not even convinced that Hancock has done anything wrong, it is the Welsh NHS that gave the contract) get hundreds of posts?
It looks as though the people criticising Hancock aren't really interested in corruption.
Because if they were, they'd be going after much bigger targets.
And if Labour were interested in fighting corruption, instead of scoring petty points, there would actually be a register of lobbyists in the Senedd (like in Westminster and Holyrood). They STILLL have not committed to this.
Have the Tories and Plaid added the lobbyists register to their manifestos? Very disappointing if not.
London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.
In May and June it might be warm enough to put ice cream in your Guinness. Embrace your inner child! (And hold the glass the right way up.)
I didn't think there was anything worse than pineapple on pizza.
But now!!!!!!
A quick Google search got this recipe for Guiness ice cream:
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
The BBC are all of a panic. How do they remain impartial when they have a Government scandal to report?
It's like Johnson and the Cenotaph. The BBC can't report Johnson being a dick, that would be partial, so they substitute footage of him being a cock, with old footage of him not being a cock. Impartiality equilibrium restored.
Or they could be correct and labour are hypocrites
Indeed watching Sophy and Marr this morning both presenters when interviewing Rachel Reeves, Ed Davey and Nicola Sturgeon sited their own involvement in lobbying and all of whom struggled to defend their own accusations
This is not to defend Cameron in this but the saying 'ye who is without sin, first cast the stone' comes to mind
Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.
That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
The BBC are all of a panic. How do they remain impartial when they have a Government scandal to report?
It's like Johnson and the Cenotaph. The BBC can't report Johnson being a dick, that would be partial, so they substitute footage of him being a cock, with old footage of him not being a cock. Impartiality equilibrium restored.
The BBC, under it's new DG is becoming the CBC...... Conservative Broadcasting Commission.
Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”
The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.
Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.
Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.
There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.
Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.
Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.
I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?
Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.
Comments
And she says there are different rules in Wales
Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all
Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly
Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives
This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract
The noted Cymru-phobe TSE speaks on Wales .... help.
Cardiff has been moving steadily towards Labour, unlike most of the rest of Wales. At Westminster, Cardiff North was usually a Tory seat (since 1950). It now is becoming pretty safe for Labour (~7000 majority in a poor year for Labour of 2019). Cardiff West which the Tories took in the landslide of 1983 is now well, well beyond them. It includes affluent areas like Pontcanna, which is chock-full of University Professors and Welsh media/broadcasting types. These groups have moved away from the Tories in recent years.
At the Senedd elections in 2016, the Cardiff West Plaid Cymru candidate Neil McEvoy surprisingly ran Drakeford very close.
McEvoy was formerly Labour, and had a profile as a combative local Councillor on Cardiff Council. He is a maverick, but has a strong local following -- for example, he has spearheaded a number of local & highly visible campaigns, such as to stop radioactive mud from Hinkley Point being dumped in Cardiff bay. This is the reason why the Cardiff West result was close -- a popular, articulate and highly visible local candidate added to the Plaid Cymru support in the seat.
Since then, McEvoy fell out with Plaid Cymru and founded his own party (Propel) under whose banner he is running in Cardiff West in 2021. There was some discussion in Plaid Cymru about standing down in Cardiff West, but in the end the discord between McEvoy and Plaid Cymru prevailed and so both are running.
If only one of McEvoy or Plaid Cymru was running, then Drakeford would probably have a real fight on his hands. But they are both running. So, my guess is that Drakeford will win by a few thousand, McEvoy for Propel will come second, but further behind than in 2016.
It will be very close between Plaid Cymru and the Tories for third and fourth.
It is wrong to apply uniform national swings to this seat -- Plaid Cymru are very unlikely to win, as are the Tories. In fact, it is possible that the Tory vote may even be squeezed in Cardiff West, so they fall further behind than in 2016.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1380998902170726404?s=20
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1381007870150508550?s=20
Unfortunately, it is the norm. Show me a government since Roman times that didn't operate this way. You may hope for better, but power attracts lobbying - because money sees it as the way of getting its way.
This episode would be a massively embarrassing episode that could fell any previous government, but this is a Boris Johnson Government, so none of this might gain any traction whatsoever, and we just blame Cameron, Blair, Clegg and their coalition of corrupt wokery.
Maybe watch Marr on playback
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhnvqu7Xjxc&t=326s
As we are on the topic of Wales, let me again point out that the ONLY Parliament without a register of lobbyists is the one Labour control in Wales.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56786783
"Asked whether Labour, if it is returned to power after May's Senedd election, would introduce an official lobbyists' register, Mr Gething responded: "I'm entirely open about it because I think what we'd need to do is try to have some consensus between parties to have effective rules that we all live by and all govern by."
Well, that is an brilliantly obscure answer from Vaughan Gething.
Is it 'Yes' or 'No' ?
Are Welsh Labour going to introduce the minimal standards present in Westminster or Holyrood. Or are they not?
I have never accused anyone of acting illegally
Forgive me while, in my best West Midlands brogue I quote Mandy Rice Davies, and claim you are Lord Astor!
It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales
It is a document shredding company.
Presumably the contract was awarded by NHS Wales to the lowest bidder.
If there is evidence that this is not the case, than it should be presented.
Davey has a lobbying contract with a renewables company. He believes in the cause. He doesn't lobby government. His interest is openly declared in members' interests. He needs the money to support his disabled son when Davey dies.
But Marr had successfully deflected Davey from criticising the government.
I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.
My point was that whether justified or not, Ministers would be well-advised to avoid perceived (not real) conflicts of interest. But who am I to give advice to Tories?
There is plenty of corruption in Wales if the London media are interested in looking for it. But this does not look like corruption.
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1383710957122121734?s=21
For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.
crooks and na...nooks and crannies.Dandelion and Burdock? Yum, in small quantities.
In any case I’m a much bigger fan of puerile smut than racism.
I was picking up a few every year or two for my mum until she died in 2019.
https://twitter.com/keir_starmer/status/1383681781996556290?s=21
1) “former PM asks for stuff and is told no”;
2) “Health Secretary owns shares in non-health business and declares them in full”; and
3) Really busy civil servants take slightly longer to fulfil transparency requirements during a pandemic.
The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.
The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.
£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?
Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.
That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.
Brillo would have read the lettter out to Rachel Reeves where she demanded that cosideration for COVID contracts be given to a whole series of questionable copanies.
Surprised that Davey did not point out the LD role in seting up the 2011 rules, whilst saying it is now time to go further.
https://twitter.com/leonardocarella/status/1383686519735545858?s=21
In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.
However, under our system, ministerial roles change frequently and unexpectedly, so you’d have to say that no one who MIGHT become Health Secretary can have any active interest in shares.
All in a model where ministers don’t take decisions on contracts.
Knowing BoJo he's going to end up being linked to it.
London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.
Why the need to gift these shares now? Why a gift? Might it have been wiser to do this when Hancock had stopped being a Minister?
To ask these questions is not to accuse people of corruption. But it is to probe whether those in public office are really thinking about the wisdom and probity of what they are doing and trying their hardest to be whiter than white. And from the PM down it really does not appear that they really give a damn about such considerations (even if this case appears to be a non-story).
The answers are all very self-serving and technical: "it was only a technical breach", "where does it say that I can't do that", "everyone else is doing it", "I told people" etc. It is all a bit reminiscent of the sorts of excuses I used to get from traders.
People will give credit to someone getting something wrong if they believe that overall the government is trying hard to behave with integrity. But that belief that this government is one with integrity is not there. So every small story and even ones which don't have much substance add to a general picture of a government where people appear to be in it for what they and their friends can get out of it. Voters may tolerate that while they too are getting something out of it. But when the latter stops, the reaction can be vicious.
See the finance industry for an example of what I mean.
2. By contrast, a massive fraud like the purchase of a failing airport by the Welsh Government for 52 million pounds (at the same time the Scottish Government bought a failing airport for £1) received hardly any notice. I'll warrant no pb-er even was aware of this dodgy business before I mentioned it. I'll also warrant that few pb-ers knew that the Labour controlled Senedd is the only Parliament without a register of lobbyists.
There are big crooks, little crooks and people who aren't crooks.
Why do the big crooks get no attention? And the people who aren't crooks (I am not even convinced that Hancock has done anything wrong, it is the Welsh NHS that gave the contract) get hundreds of posts?
It looks as though the people criticising Hancock aren't really interested in corruption.
Because if they were, they'd be going after much bigger targets.
And if Labour were interested in fighting corruption, instead of scoring petty points, there would actually be a register of lobbyists in the Senedd (like in Westminster and Holyrood). They STILLL have not committed to this.
But now!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmTZ404V2H0
It's like Johnson and the Cenotaph. The BBC can't report Johnson being a dick, that would be partial, so they substitute footage of him being a cock, with old footage of him not being a cock. Impartiality equilibrium restored.
Indeed watching Sophy and Marr this morning both presenters when interviewing Rachel Reeves, Ed Davey and Nicola Sturgeon sited their own involvement in lobbying and all of whom struggled to defend their own accusations
This is not to defend Cameron in this but the saying 'ye who is without sin, first cast the stone' comes to mind