Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Only in the Midlands and Wales do more people think Johnson’s “clean and honest” over those who thin

1246

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    It's not a lasting asset, though, is it?

    Were it an extension, you could argue that the ongoing value of the state's property has increased.

    But we are talking wallpaper and paint and fixtures and fittings - stuff that the next PM is sure to spend his or her allowance papering over.

    So it's a time-limited, temporary, benefit, enjoyed almost entirely by the current incumbent.
    The kitchen was last done in 2011. 10-15 years, three careful owners, no unreasonable to update a kitchen after that.
  • IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Cummings and others need to take care in attacking Carrie as it will rightly be labelled misogyny
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,096

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,114
    IanB2 said:

    MattW said:

    I think someone was trying to remember the cause of "Major Sleaze".

    IIRC Major's 'sleaze' was mainly about hypocrisy not corruption: Back to Basics. Which slogan was nt intended to be about sex, but the MPs and the Tabloids .. er .. cocked it up.

    There were cases - Jonathan Aitken making money from Saudi contacts, and accepting 2 nights at a Paris Hotel from Mr Al Fayed, and then escalating press reporting into a libel action where he committed perjury. And was jailed for committing the perjury aiui.

    (Aside: I hadn't noticed that JA has now been Ordained.)

    Cash for questions! Which became the making of Neil Hamilton, who never went away.
    Ah Yes. Memory dawns.

    And Tim Smith, formerly of this parish.

    Something else to be brought into the enquiry?

    Nowadays you just buy an APPG.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,615

    A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    And then, Cummings at the Committee. He is going to turn up and do one of him uber-arrogant but calm and measured demolition jobs. And when someone asks how we can trust his word after Barnard Castle, he simply produces the evidence.

    The hacks are already talking about how he walked up and down Whitehall in his final weeks with the medical evidence that the PM was ignoring - he will still have all of that and a whole lot more.

    Its easy to deflect allegations - Boris gives tax breaks to party donors, Boris gets patrons to pay his £250k decorating bill, Boris hands out £107m contracts for PPE to friends with no experience of PPE - your average man in the pub garden does all of that, he's just one of the lads isn't he?

    But when its deaths. Tens of thousands of deaths. That wouldn't have died had Liar listened to the scientists. That will provoke a blizzard of Daily Heil stories where grieving people vent their anger. And then the whole house on the sand implodes. All the stuff that happened and was dismissed as unpatriotic - the government saying they follow the science, then the government saying the science is only part of the process and ministers make the decisions, then the government following the science again - it will all be hurled against him to bury him.

    And at the end? A new Tory PM who will ride a popularity wave as the UK moves into recovery. Poor Keir - he won't get a look in.

    I think that folk are more tolerant of sleaze and corruption when the economy is doing well, and the national mood is becoming more optomistic. Much less so when they are under the economic cosh themselves. Hence the MP expenses scandal was such a big issue because it hit at the same time as the Great Financial Crisis.

    The second half of Johnson's first parliament is going to include a lot of austerity. Sleaze and chumocracy will corrode the government more in that financial environment.
  • malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    Yep - my heart bleeds for Mrs Great Grandmother Charles. Many of us have suffered the trauma of having been gifted an apartment at the top of the Mall and a decorating allowance.

    The indignity of it.
    Mrs RP has just pointed out that when she ran away from an abusive relationship and fell on Sheffield Council for help, they moved her into a small studio apartment in a demilitarised zone where all the walls were painted in industrial grey, and gave her an "utterly ridiculous" £60 redecoration allowance.

    Happily she was able to refurbish it out of her own pocket, but as @Charles said it is pathetic that we expect ordinary people to live in substandard accomodation.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,808
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    It's not a lasting asset, though, is it?

    Were it an extension, you could argue that the ongoing value of the state's property has increased.

    But we are talking wallpaper and paint and fixtures and fittings - stuff that the next PM is sure to spend his or her allowance papering over.

    So it's a time-limited, temporary, benefit, enjoyed almost entirely by the current incumbent.
    That is not fair. His mistresses will benefit from it too.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,795

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Completely agree. Politicians are human (mostly). Of course they listen to their significant others and show an interest in what interests them. Anybody and everybody in a relationship does this. This is pathetic.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,977
    ministers are claiming that Johnson is *entirely* focused on the pandemic, also no one is denying he personally called newspaper editors to brief against Cummings
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1386236827812704257
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,114
    edited April 2021
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    I bet a chunk of it went on someone to design and project manage and buy the stuff, their being too busy to do so themselves.

    Farrow & Ball, to give it the correct name, has an attractive chalky matt appearance, if you dont mind having to paint four coats to get a decent finish. And if you so much as brush against it thereafter, you'll have a mark to repair or a patch of paint might simply drop off the wall.
    Quite possible.

    Then problem of the London status-head, male or female.

    The last time I used a Farrow and Ball colour back in 2011, I gave the name to the chap at Johnstons, and he phoned up his HQ for the code and mixed it in 5 minutes.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,977
    This is the point

    The claim re PM refurbishment is that a donor paid the contractors directly for the makeover.

    Many months later Boris Johnson met the costs.

    This means there should be a loan declared to the Electoral Commission - but there isn’t https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1386236929524502529
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    This short Sun video with David Cameron shows the shiny new kitchen and a bit of the flat after SamCam did up Number 10.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9hqE5HVVQk
    It’s not huge, is it

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    As @thetimesscot reports IFS research to show Scotland’s deficit is over £40bn (22-25% of GDP) a reminder Nicola Sturgeon pledges current spending plans would be guaranteed in independent Scotland. Also, over time, saving enough reserves to set up a new currency & join EU.

    https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/status/1386234454130241539?s=20
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    I bet a chunk of it went on someone to design and project manage and buy the stuff, their being too busy to do so themselves.

    Farrow & Ball, to give it the correct name, has an attractive chalky matt appearance, if you dont mind having to paint four coats to get a decent finish. And if you so much as brush against it thereafter, you'll have a mark to repair or a patch of paint might simply drop off the wall.
    Agreed - we match to their String colour
  • A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    And then, Cummings at the Committee. He is going to turn up and do one of him uber-arrogant but calm and measured demolition jobs. And when someone asks how we can trust his word after Barnard Castle, he simply produces the evidence.

    The hacks are already talking about how he walked up and down Whitehall in his final weeks with the medical evidence that the PM was ignoring - he will still have all of that and a whole lot more.

    Its easy to deflect allegations - Boris gives tax breaks to party donors, Boris gets patrons to pay his £250k decorating bill, Boris hands out £107m contracts for PPE to friends with no experience of PPE - your average man in the pub garden does all of that, he's just one of the lads isn't he?

    But when its deaths. Tens of thousands of deaths. That wouldn't have died had Liar listened to the scientists. That will provoke a blizzard of Daily Heil stories where grieving people vent their anger. And then the whole house on the sand implodes. All the stuff that happened and was dismissed as unpatriotic - the government saying they follow the science, then the government saying the science is only part of the process and ministers make the decisions, then the government following the science again - it will all be hurled against him to bury him.

    And at the end? A new Tory PM who will ride a popularity wave as the UK moves into recovery. Poor Keir - he won't get a look in.

    I ask this rather politely but have you been on that wonderful Scots whisky produced nearby
    Not this morning!

    To throw the question back at you, are you suggesting that Cumming *hasn't* got reams of evidence? He was notoriously running an information gathering operation, and is already reported taking the information to every meeting he went to.

    He's got it, he'll use it. Hard for people to forgive the PM ignoring the science and killing their grandma.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    It's not a lasting asset, though, is it?

    Were it an extension, you could argue that the ongoing value of the state's property has increased.

    But we are talking wallpaper and paint and fixtures and fittings - stuff that the next PM is sure to spend his or her allowance papering over.

    So it's a time-limited, temporary, benefit, enjoyed almost entirely by the current incumbent.
    The kitchen was last done in 2011. 10-15 years, three careful owners, no unreasonable to update a kitchen after that.
    According to the PAC 35% of armed forces accomodation is of "poor" standard. 5% is so bad that the MoD let the lucky residents live rent free. 29% of people leaving the services cite the standard of accommodation as the main reason. Let's fix that before we spend anything on the comfort of Johnson and his latest (but by no means last) cock holster.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,795
    Scott_xP said:

    This is the point

    The claim re PM refurbishment is that a donor paid the contractors directly for the makeover.

    Many months later Boris Johnson met the costs.

    This means there should be a loan declared to the Electoral Commission - but there isn’t https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1386236929524502529

    It really, really isn't. A loan is when someone lends you money. No one lent money to Boris here. The money was spent on a property he doesn't own so he didn't even get a "loan" indirectly.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,775
    Mr. xP, that's a 100% unrealistic and unreasonable suggestion about Boris Johnson.

    I find it literally unbelievable that he's capable of having focus.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,826
    Fairly or otherwise this redecorating of No.10 reminds me of this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUnvgKhWZdI
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,342

    A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    And then, Cummings at the Committee. He is going to turn up and do one of him uber-arrogant but calm and measured demolition jobs. And when someone asks how we can trust his word after Barnard Castle, he simply produces the evidence.

    The hacks are already talking about how he walked up and down Whitehall in his final weeks with the medical evidence that the PM was ignoring - he will still have all of that and a whole lot more.

    Its easy to deflect allegations - Boris gives tax breaks to party donors, Boris gets patrons to pay his £250k decorating bill, Boris hands out £107m contracts for PPE to friends with no experience of PPE - your average man in the pub garden does all of that, he's just one of the lads isn't he?

    But when its deaths. Tens of thousands of deaths. That wouldn't have died had Liar listened to the scientists. That will provoke a blizzard of Daily Heil stories where grieving people vent their anger. And then the whole house on the sand implodes. All the stuff that happened and was dismissed as unpatriotic - the government saying they follow the science, then the government saying the science is only part of the process and ministers make the decisions, then the government following the science again - it will all be hurled against him to bury him.

    And at the end? A new Tory PM who will ride a popularity wave as the UK moves into recovery. Poor Keir - he won't get a look in.

    In general, the public are willing to cut the government a lot of slack over Covid.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,362
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    This short Sun video with David Cameron shows the shiny new kitchen and a bit of the flat after SamCam did up Number 10.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9hqE5HVVQk
    It’s not huge, is it

    Shouldn't cost thousands to replace the doors then?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,571

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Cummings and others need to take care in attacking Carrie as it will rightly be labelled misogyny
    But it’s definitely fair game to ask about her role in the No.10 operation, given that she holds no formal position.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,722
    It comes to it when PBers are arguing about an ffing kitchen. BORIS will not care. The Opposition is incapable of opposing Boris is Teflon costed at the moment.

    What do the pools say about Keir.. without actually seeing them I can guess.. DULL DULL DULL.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    edited April 2021
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    It's not a lasting asset, though, is it?

    Were it an extension, you could argue that the ongoing value of the state's property has increased.

    But we are talking wallpaper and paint and fixtures and fittings - stuff that the next PM is sure to spend his or her allowance papering over.

    So it's a time-limited, temporary, benefit, enjoyed almost entirely by the current incumbent.
    The kitchen was last done in 2011. 10-15 years, three careful owners, no unreasonable to update a kitchen after that.
    My point is that, for a benefit that is time-limited, that the state owns the underlying asset becomes irrelevant. The costs are the same and the benefit of the refurbishment, to the person living there across the period of its life, is the same. So, very clearly, he is being given something.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Cummings and others need to take care in attacking Carrie as it will rightly be labelled misogyny
    But it’s definitely fair game to ask about her role in the No.10 operation, given that she holds no formal position.
    And can't be sacked.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    I bet a chunk of it went on someone to design and project manage and buy the stuff, their being too busy to do so themselves.

    Farrow & Ball, to give it the correct name, has an attractive chalky matt appearance, if you dont mind having to paint four coats to get a decent finish. And if you so much as brush against it thereafter, you'll have a mark to repair or a patch of paint might simply drop off the wall.
    Agreed - we match to their String colour
    As a layman, I do think there is depth of colour to the Farrow & Ball finish that you can’t get elsewhere.

    I put Breakfast Room Green in the living room in the (listed) flat in 2011 and it is still “going strong”.

    None of my refurbs have cost £60k.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Dura_Ace said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    It's not a lasting asset, though, is it?

    Were it an extension, you could argue that the ongoing value of the state's property has increased.

    But we are talking wallpaper and paint and fixtures and fittings - stuff that the next PM is sure to spend his or her allowance papering over.

    So it's a time-limited, temporary, benefit, enjoyed almost entirely by the current incumbent.
    The kitchen was last done in 2011. 10-15 years, three careful owners, no unreasonable to update a kitchen after that.
    According to the PAC 35% of armed forces accomodation is of "poor" standard. 5% is so bad that the MoD let the lucky residents live rent free. 29% of people leaving the services cite the standard of accommodation as the main reason. Let's fix that before we spend anything on the comfort of Johnson and his latest (but by no means last) cock holster.
    The support given to the services - I’m more interested in veterans personally but accommodation is important as well - is a disgrace.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,009
    edited April 2021

    A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    And then, Cummings at the Committee. He is going to turn up and do one of him uber-arrogant but calm and measured demolition jobs. And when someone asks how we can trust his word after Barnard Castle, he simply produces the evidence.

    The hacks are already talking about how he walked up and down Whitehall in his final weeks with the medical evidence that the PM was ignoring - he will still have all of that and a whole lot more.

    Its easy to deflect allegations - Boris gives tax breaks to party donors, Boris gets patrons to pay his £250k decorating bill, Boris hands out £107m contracts for PPE to friends with no experience of PPE - your average man in the pub garden does all of that, he's just one of the lads isn't he?

    But when its deaths. Tens of thousands of deaths. That wouldn't have died had Liar listened to the scientists. That will provoke a blizzard of Daily Heil stories where grieving people vent their anger. And then the whole house on the sand implodes. All the stuff that happened and was dismissed as unpatriotic - the government saying they follow the science, then the government saying the science is only part of the process and ministers make the decisions, then the government following the science again - it will all be hurled against him to bury him.

    And at the end? A new Tory PM who will ride a popularity wave as the UK moves into recovery. Poor Keir - he won't get a look in.

    I ask this rather politely but have you been on that wonderful Scots whisky produced nearby
    Not this morning!

    To throw the question back at you, are you suggesting that Cumming *hasn't* got reams of evidence? He was notoriously running an information gathering operation, and is already reported taking the information to every meeting he went to.

    He's got it, he'll use it. Hard for people to forgive the PM ignoring the science and killing their grandma.
    I have no doubt he has but remember that the decisions throughout this pandemic were largely followed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

    I dislike your 'killing their grandma' reference intensely, but nowhere in the UK was that more true than in care homes in Scotland under Sturgeon
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,722

    Reading through this morning gave me a bit of a lump in my throat.

    I can only imagine the hardship that the aristocracy and the upper classes are going through at the moment. It must be terrifying; we need to give more state aid to those burdened with expensive properties.

    We are being screwed council tax up 5% pensions up 2.5 %
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297

    As @thetimesscot reports IFS research to show Scotland’s deficit is over £40bn (22-25% of GDP) a reminder Nicola Sturgeon pledges current spending plans would be guaranteed in independent Scotland. Also, over time, saving enough reserves to set up a new currency & join EU.

    https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/status/1386234454130241539?s=20

    Deficit
    Pensions
    Currency
    Borders

    The SNP has no realistic response to any of these.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    Are we back to Carrie’s wallpaper again?

    WTF gives a shit?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Mr. Thompson, she isn't elected, she isn't a minister, she isn't a politician.

    She shouldn't have the degree of influence over government policy that's asserted.

    She doesn't have any.

    If Boris is asking about badgers then that's on Boris, not Carrie.

    If Boris is taking an interest in badger because he's spoken to Carrie then that's normal life. The only alternative is that they don't speak to each other, or he disregards everything she says, then do you think that is how life is meant to be?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    edited April 2021

    Reading through this morning gave me a bit of a lump in my throat.

    I can only imagine the hardship that the aristocracy and the upper classes are going through at the moment. It must be terrifying; we need to give more state aid to those burdened with expensive properties.

    Won’t somebody think of the dowagers?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    Scott_xP said:

    ministers are claiming that Johnson is *entirely* focused on the pandemic, also no one is denying he personally called newspaper editors to brief against Cummings
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1386236827812704257

    That he did so himself, despite the fact that what he had to say appears very likely to have been a pack of lies, speaks volumes. Either he is so desperate that he felt he had to add his own personal weight to the briefings to the press, or he is running out of people willing to tell lies on his behalf?
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,028

    As @thetimesscot reports IFS research to show Scotland’s deficit is over £40bn (22-25% of GDP) a reminder Nicola Sturgeon pledges current spending plans would be guaranteed in independent Scotland. Also, over time, saving enough reserves to set up a new currency & join EU.

    https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/status/1386234454130241539?s=20

    Deficit
    Pensions
    Currency
    Borders

    The SNP has no realistic response to any of these.
    But Scotland is rich in natural assets - it plans to export wind and water. Or so I’m told
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777

    As @thetimesscot reports IFS research to show Scotland’s deficit is over £40bn (22-25% of GDP) a reminder Nicola Sturgeon pledges current spending plans would be guaranteed in independent Scotland. Also, over time, saving enough reserves to set up a new currency & join EU.

    https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/status/1386234454130241539?s=20

    Deficit
    Pensions
    Currency
    Borders

    The SNP has no realistic response to any of these.
    It doesn't matter. Independence is an article of faith.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Cummings and others need to take care in attacking Carrie as it will rightly be labelled misogyny
    But it’s definitely fair game to ask about her role in the No.10 operation, given that she holds no formal position.
    And I can't see that the questions would be any different if she were male. But then of course it would be homophobia. Can't win.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited April 2021
    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Hmm, nobody elected her. It's not about misogyny, it's about accountability. If she wants to have direct influence over government policy then she needs to become an MP and enter the Cabinet. Even Dom and others Spads have a specific remit and code of conduct and can be sacked, as we saw with Dom.
    She's only got direct influence if there is "phone call direct from her demanding something".

    If instead 'Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?'' then that's indirect influence not direct.

    Dom and other Spads are speaking to people direct, not indirectly speaking only to Boris.
  • Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Cummings and others need to take care in attacking Carrie as it will rightly be labelled misogyny
    But it’s definitely fair game to ask about her role in the No.10 operation, given that she holds no formal position.
    I have no problem with that but reading Cummings open and hostile attack on Carrie he is wide open to the accusation of misogyny
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Cummings and others need to take care in attacking Carrie as it will rightly be labelled misogyny
    But it’s definitely fair game to ask about her role in the No.10 operation, given that she holds no formal position.
    And can't be sacked.
    Not sure about that; the PM has 'sacked' quite a lot of previous partners/wives.
    Lol, fair. Just need to wait for his next affair and for Carrie to pack up and leave.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,775
    Mr. Thompson, I disagree strongly. Political spouses should not have a significant degree over public policy.

    They're not elected, and they're not accountable.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the point

    The claim re PM refurbishment is that a donor paid the contractors directly for the makeover.

    Many months later Boris Johnson met the costs.

    This means there should be a loan declared to the Electoral Commission - but there isn’t https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1386236929524502529

    It really, really isn't. A loan is when someone lends you money. No one lent money to Boris here. The money was spent on a property he doesn't own so he didn't even get a "loan" indirectly.
    That's arguable, since the liability to pay for any refurbishment costs above the annual allowance is a personal one, which has been met by someone else, at least temporarily.
  • A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    And then, Cummings at the Committee. He is going to turn up and do one of him uber-arrogant but calm and measured demolition jobs. And when someone asks how we can trust his word after Barnard Castle, he simply produces the evidence.

    The hacks are already talking about how he walked up and down Whitehall in his final weeks with the medical evidence that the PM was ignoring - he will still have all of that and a whole lot more.

    Its easy to deflect allegations - Boris gives tax breaks to party donors, Boris gets patrons to pay his £250k decorating bill, Boris hands out £107m contracts for PPE to friends with no experience of PPE - your average man in the pub garden does all of that, he's just one of the lads isn't he?

    But when its deaths. Tens of thousands of deaths. That wouldn't have died had Liar listened to the scientists. That will provoke a blizzard of Daily Heil stories where grieving people vent their anger. And then the whole house on the sand implodes. All the stuff that happened and was dismissed as unpatriotic - the government saying they follow the science, then the government saying the science is only part of the process and ministers make the decisions, then the government following the science again - it will all be hurled against him to bury him.

    And at the end? A new Tory PM who will ride a popularity wave as the UK moves into recovery. Poor Keir - he won't get a look in.

    I don't think any Tory leader after Johnson will be as popular as him - and the idea it's going to be plain sailing seems far fetched.

    Starmer will get a look in.
    I'm sorry but I don;t think he will. Here's the rather basic problem for Starmer - Unite. Whatever he throws at the PM, the Tories will throw Unite back at him. Unite the OCG Union continue to be at the heart of the Labour Party, donating millions to it every year and operating as an adjacent body to the Labour Party.

    What do I mean by that? One example - Unite literally rigged the selection of the Labour candidate for Tees Valley Mayor so that Jessie Joe Jacobs (their candidate) was the only applicant accepted onto the shortlist. The same Unite that spends their member's money suing the Labour Party on behalf of any Corbynite lost cause, or funds the legal defence of both themselves and Shitebox when sued for Libel by ex-Labour MPs (Anna Turley).

    To say nothing of the ongoing Liverpool / Birmingham scandal. Whatever dirt there is on Boris Johnson - and there is a LOT - there is also dirt against Unite and their cronies who on face value appear to be awarding vastly over-valued contracts to their mates.

    With Unite and the rest of the hard left still at the heart of the Labour Party, Starmer has no room to talk about corruption - his own party is still riddled with it. Ask Hartlepool CLP members how much choice they had in selecting Dr People's Vote as candidate in the leaviest of leave constituencies...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the point

    The claim re PM refurbishment is that a donor paid the contractors directly for the makeover.

    Many months later Boris Johnson met the costs.

    This means there should be a loan declared to the Electoral Commission - but there isn’t https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1386236929524502529

    It really, really isn't. A loan is when someone lends you money. No one lent money to Boris here. The money was spent on a property he doesn't own so he didn't even get a "loan" indirectly.
    That's arguable, since the liability to pay for any refurbishment costs above the annual allowance is a personal one, which has been met by someone else, at least temporarily.
    That last bit is doing a lot of lifting. What provable future liability does Boris have for this?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    MaxPB said:



    Hmm, nobody elected her. It's not about misogyny, it's about accountability. If she wants to have direct influence over government policy then she needs to become an MP and enter the Cabinet. Even Dom and others Spads have a specific remit and code of conduct and can be sacked, as we saw with Dom.


    He was sacked for falling out with NutNut not breaking the code or the law.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Mr. Thompson, I disagree strongly. Political spouses should not have a significant degree over public policy.

    They're not elected, and they're not accountable.

    She only has any degree if she is acting off her own back, speaking to people themselves.

    If it is Boris acting then Boris is elected. Who Boris gets influenced by is a matter for Boris and the people who vote for him.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,124
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    It's not a lasting asset, though, is it?

    Were it an extension, you could argue that the ongoing value of the state's property has increased.

    But we are talking wallpaper and paint and fixtures and fittings - stuff that the next PM is sure to spend his or her allowance papering over.

    So it's a time-limited, temporary, benefit, enjoyed almost entirely by the current incumbent.
    The kitchen was last done in 2011. 10-15 years, three careful owners, no unreasonable to update a kitchen after that.
    The idea of the decor makes me think Boris wants to stay on for a while.

    Ironically, actualising it might make that a bit harder....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,096
    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Dura_Ace said:

    MaxPB said:



    Hmm, nobody elected her. It's not about misogyny, it's about accountability. If she wants to have direct influence over government policy then she needs to become an MP and enter the Cabinet. Even Dom and others Spads have a specific remit and code of conduct and can be sacked, as we saw with Dom.


    He was sacked for falling out with NutNut not breaking the code or the law.
    He was sacked for falling out with Boris.

    Insulting someone's fiancée is a good way to fall out with most men.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859

    Reading through this morning gave me a bit of a lump in my throat.

    I can only imagine the hardship that the aristocracy and the upper classes are going through at the moment. It must be terrifying; we need to give more state aid to those burdened with expensive properties.

    We are being screwed council tax up 5% pensions up 2.5 %
    Yes - the government's council tax capping, which has always been wrong in principle, is becoming ineffective in practice. By the time you add on the parish precept, the additional allowable increase for social care, and whatever your police & crime commissioner has decided to slap on top, most people are facing percentage increases this year well above the supposed cap.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    21 minutes?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    It's not a lasting asset, though, is it?

    Were it an extension, you could argue that the ongoing value of the state's property has increased.

    But we are talking wallpaper and paint and fixtures and fittings - stuff that the next PM is sure to spend his or her allowance papering over.

    So it's a time-limited, temporary, benefit, enjoyed almost entirely by the current incumbent.
    The kitchen was last done in 2011. 10-15 years, three careful owners, no unreasonable to update a kitchen after that.
    My point is that, for a benefit that is time-limited, that the state owns the underlying asset becomes irrelevant. The costs are the same and the benefit of the refurbishment, to the person living there across the period of its life, is the same. So, very clearly, he is being given something.
    I disagree - the state is providing accommodation to an employee.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    Does anyone know why Allegra is suddenly out of favour?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,846
    IanB2 said:
    Interesting but not very informative. I use Deliveroo six to eight times a week and do not understand the economics for the drivers (cars and scooters far outweigh the cyclists round here) or the restaurants or Deliveroo itself. The article confirms the company is not profitable, and the IPO was disappointing so perhaps I was partly right to be sceptical but I'm not much the wiser about how it is supposed to work.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032
    edited April 2021
    malcolmg said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    A drop in the ocean compared to the £414m spent on the Scottish Parliament building.
    Or indeed the £12 billion to refurbish the Palace of Westminster.
    The addled halfwit does not count such things, talks through his union jack underpants.
    Ignoring the usual abuse, they are rather different because the £12 billion I understand is an international obligation because the Palace of Westminster is a World Heritage site, while the Scottish Parliament was a newbuild. Either way it is an eye-watering sum of money - £500 from every family in the country.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,114
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    I bet a chunk of it went on someone to design and project manage and buy the stuff, their being too busy to do so themselves.

    Farrow & Ball, to give it the correct name, has an attractive chalky matt appearance, if you dont mind having to paint four coats to get a decent finish. And if you so much as brush against it thereafter, you'll have a mark to repair or a patch of paint might simply drop off the wall.
    Agreed - we match to their String colour
    Yes, I can see that.

    However we are currently trending to fewer deaths per pop than the EU average, so it will not

    A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    I ask this rather politely but have you been on that wonderful Scots whisky produced nearby
    Not this morning!

    To throw the question back at you, are you suggesting that Cumming *hasn't* got reams of evidence? He was notoriously running an information gathering operation, and is already reported taking the information to every meeting he went to.

    He's got it, he'll use it. Hard for people to forgive the PM ignoring the science and killing their grandma.
    That story won't be that clear imo.

    When people look for context in 3 to 6 months, they will find us in the middle of the stats for big european countries.

    Brexit politics will ensure that side also gets airtime, especially if EUCo are still punching random bystanders like an aggressive drunk in a pub brawl.


  • Does anyone know why Allegra is suddenly out of favour?

    Apparently she is in charge of communications for the climate conference in Glasgow
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,297
    edited April 2021

    Does anyone know why Allegra is suddenly out of favour?

    Apparently she is in charge of communications for the climate conference in Glasgow
    Yes, a significant demotion.
    As Hodges puts it:

    Second, the decision to axe plans for live Downing Street media briefings, and dispense with the services of media chief Allegra Stratton. Who lobbied strongly for Stratton's appointment, so that she could sideline the candidate preferred by Cummings and his team? Carrie. 'Carrie basically used Allegra,' a No 10 insider told me, 'and then when she didn't need her any more, she dumped her.'

    PS sorry to hear about your family medical issues.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    Can't remember: six months? After 20-30 a day x 20 years, and lots of failures. The method genuinely worked (and as far as I can tell is my own invention).
  • A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    And then, Cummings at the Committee. He is going to turn up and do one of him uber-arrogant but calm and measured demolition jobs. And when someone asks how we can trust his word after Barnard Castle, he simply produces the evidence.

    The hacks are already talking about how he walked up and down Whitehall in his final weeks with the medical evidence that the PM was ignoring - he will still have all of that and a whole lot more.

    Its easy to deflect allegations - Boris gives tax breaks to party donors, Boris gets patrons to pay his £250k decorating bill, Boris hands out £107m contracts for PPE to friends with no experience of PPE - your average man in the pub garden does all of that, he's just one of the lads isn't he?

    But when its deaths. Tens of thousands of deaths. That wouldn't have died had Liar listened to the scientists. That will provoke a blizzard of Daily Heil stories where grieving people vent their anger. And then the whole house on the sand implodes. All the stuff that happened and was dismissed as unpatriotic - the government saying they follow the science, then the government saying the science is only part of the process and ministers make the decisions, then the government following the science again - it will all be hurled against him to bury him.

    And at the end? A new Tory PM who will ride a popularity wave as the UK moves into recovery. Poor Keir - he won't get a look in.

    I ask this rather politely but have you been on that wonderful Scots whisky produced nearby
    Not this morning!

    To throw the question back at you, are you suggesting that Cumming *hasn't* got reams of evidence? He was notoriously running an information gathering operation, and is already reported taking the information to every meeting he went to.

    He's got it, he'll use it. Hard for people to forgive the PM ignoring the science and killing their grandma.
    I have no doubt he has but remember that the decisions throughout this pandemic were largely followed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

    I dislike your 'killing their grandma' reference intensely, but nowhere in the UK was that more true than in care homes in Scotland under Sturgeon
    I dislike it intensely as well. But it happened as a direct result of government policy.

    They we have the Christmas fiasco. The 5 day cease-fire where Covid wouldn't infect you. Boris saves Christmas spake the Daily Heil. Then after a LOT of pressure he drops it to a 1 day cease-fire. And in January the Covid peak almost overwhelms the NHS.

    He is desperate not to have to answer to an enquiry into this. But it is coming. And it will absolutely finish him. When Cummings sits there at the committee, calmly states what happened, how the PM ignored it AND produces the evidence, I don't think we'll need to wait very long for the enquiry.

    Remember that this government have gone from following the science to ignoring the science to following the science without a second's thought. Or as the BMJ puts it - hiding behind the science then hiding from the science. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/12/23/as-covid-19-has-progressed-ministers-have-gone-from-hiding-behind-the-science-to-hiding-from-the-science/
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777

    Does anyone know why Allegra is suddenly out of favour?

    Apparently she is in charge of communications for the climate conference in Glasgow
    Yes, a significant demotion.
    As Hodges puts it:

    Second, the decision to axe plans for live Downing Street media briefings, and dispense with the services of media chief Allegra Stratton. Who lobbied strongly for Stratton's appointment, so that she could sideline the candidate preferred by Cummings and his team? Carrie. 'Carrie basically used Allegra,' a No 10 insider told me, 'and then when she didn't need her any more, she dumped her.'

    PS sorry to hear about your family medical issues.
    Carrie trying to keep other women away from Boris, I expect.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the point

    The claim re PM refurbishment is that a donor paid the contractors directly for the makeover.

    Many months later Boris Johnson met the costs.

    This means there should be a loan declared to the Electoral Commission - but there isn’t https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1386236929524502529

    It really, really isn't. A loan is when someone lends you money. No one lent money to Boris here. The money was spent on a property he doesn't own so he didn't even get a "loan" indirectly.
    That's arguable, since the liability to pay for any refurbishment costs above the annual allowance is a personal one, which has been met by someone else, at least temporarily.
    That last bit is doing a lot of lifting. What provable future liability does Boris have for this?
    Its not complicated. If the clown spends £30,000 on wallpaper, the state pays. If he spends £35,000, he has to pay the extra £5,000, and the liability to pay arises as soon as the money is spent - which in this case is a while back. If someone else stands him the £5,000 until the end of the year, it's a loan. Wonga offer the same service, I believe, although I hear that they do charge a little extra for it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,114
    Fishing said:

    malcolmg said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    A drop in the ocean compared to the £414m spent on the Scottish Parliament building.
    Or indeed the £12 billion to refurbish the Palace of Westminster.
    The addled halfwit does not count such things, talks through his union jack underpants.
    Ignoring the usual abuse, they are rather different because the £12 billion I understand is an international obligation because the Palace of Westminster is a World Heritage site, while the Scottish Parliament was a newbuild. Either way it is an eye-watering sum of money - £500 from every family in the country.
    IIRC the original budget for Hollyrood was .... £37m.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,906
    edited April 2021

    As @thetimesscot reports IFS research to show Scotland’s deficit is over £40bn (22-25% of GDP) a reminder Nicola Sturgeon pledges current spending plans would be guaranteed in independent Scotland. Also, over time, saving enough reserves to set up a new currency & join EU.

    https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/status/1386234454130241539?s=20

    Deficit
    Pensions
    Currency
    Borders

    The SNP has no realistic response to any of these.
    But Scotland is rich in natural assets - it plans to export wind and water. Or so I’m told
    There is no shortage of wind outside of "Scottish" waters. The offshore wind farm at Dogger Bank will go up to 4.8 GW when completed, Hornsea up to 6.0 GW, and it might even go beyond that. We should see more onshore wind power in the UK in the years ahead as well. On top of that solar (not of great use in Scotland) is becoming ever cheaper and more accepted. So I'm fairly sure that the UK will not need electricity from an independent Scotland.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777
    IanB2 said:

    MaxPB said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    This is the point

    The claim re PM refurbishment is that a donor paid the contractors directly for the makeover.

    Many months later Boris Johnson met the costs.

    This means there should be a loan declared to the Electoral Commission - but there isn’t https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1386236929524502529

    It really, really isn't. A loan is when someone lends you money. No one lent money to Boris here. The money was spent on a property he doesn't own so he didn't even get a "loan" indirectly.
    That's arguable, since the liability to pay for any refurbishment costs above the annual allowance is a personal one, which has been met by someone else, at least temporarily.
    That last bit is doing a lot of lifting. What provable future liability does Boris have for this?
    Its not complicated. If the clown spends £30,000 on wallpaper, the state pays. If he spends £35,000, he has to pay the extra £5,000, and the liability to pay arises as soon as the money is spent - which in this case is a while back. If someone else stands him the £5,000 until the end of the year, it's a loan. Wonga offer the same service, I believe, although I hear that they do charge a little extra for it.
    No, I mean contingent liability, given that the state seemingly has its money but Boris isn't £170k out of pocket.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859

    IanB2 said:
    Interesting but not very informative. I use Deliveroo six to eight times a week and do not understand the economics for the drivers (cars and scooters far outweigh the cyclists round here) or the restaurants or Deliveroo itself. The article confirms the company is not profitable, and the IPO was disappointing so perhaps I was partly right to be sceptical but I'm not much the wiser about how it is supposed to work.
    The most interesting bit is how they are creating their own dark kitchens and taking people and/or recipes from the most popular restaurants in house
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,846
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ministers are claiming that Johnson is *entirely* focused on the pandemic, also no one is denying he personally called newspaper editors to brief against Cummings
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1386236827812704257

    That he did so himself, despite the fact that what he had to say appears very likely to have been a pack of lies, speaks volumes. Either he is so desperate that he felt he had to add his own personal weight to the briefings to the press, or he is running out of people willing to tell lies on his behalf?
    The question is why Boris was personally spinning a line that was bound to unravel as soon as the recipients called Cummings. Too much red wine or a dead cat?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    I bet a chunk of it went on someone to design and project manage and buy the stuff, their being too busy to do so themselves.

    Farrow & Ball, to give it the correct name, has an attractive chalky matt appearance, if you dont mind having to paint four coats to get a decent finish. And if you so much as brush against it thereafter, you'll have a mark to repair or a patch of paint might simply drop off the wall.
    Agreed - we match to their String colour
    Yes, I can see that.

    However we are currently trending to fewer deaths per pop than the EU average, so it will not

    A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    I ask this rather politely but have you been on that wonderful Scots whisky produced nearby
    Not this morning!

    To throw the question back at you, are you suggesting that Cumming *hasn't* got reams of evidence? He was notoriously running an information gathering operation, and is already reported taking the information to every meeting he went to.

    He's got it, he'll use it. Hard for people to forgive the PM ignoring the science and killing their grandma.
    That story won't be that clear imo.

    When people look for context in 3 to 6 months, they will find us in the middle of the stats for big european countries.

    Brexit politics will ensure that side also gets airtime, especially if EUCo are still punching random bystanders like an aggressive drunk in a pub brawl.


    Considering the systematic under-reporting of deaths across much of Europe - and the over-reporting of deaths here - its almost certain that UK excess deaths will be below average not above it by the end of the day.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1386233049944313860

    Ah so she went to the Jeremy Corbyn school of answering questions

    What do you expect her to say ? She handled a poor hand adequately
  • MaxPB said:

    Does anyone know why Allegra is suddenly out of favour?

    Apparently she is in charge of communications for the climate conference in Glasgow
    Yes, a significant demotion.
    As Hodges puts it:

    Second, the decision to axe plans for live Downing Street media briefings, and dispense with the services of media chief Allegra Stratton. Who lobbied strongly for Stratton's appointment, so that she could sideline the candidate preferred by Cummings and his team? Carrie. 'Carrie basically used Allegra,' a No 10 insider told me, 'and then when she didn't need her any more, she dumped her.'

    PS sorry to hear about your family medical issues.
    Carrie trying to keep other women away from Boris, I expect.
    We aren't allowed to talk about [ ] and [ ] having [ ] remember...
  • Does anyone know why Allegra is suddenly out of favour?

    Apparently she is in charge of communications for the climate conference in Glasgow
    Yes, a significant demotion.
    As Hodges puts it:

    Second, the decision to axe plans for live Downing Street media briefings, and dispense with the services of media chief Allegra Stratton. Who lobbied strongly for Stratton's appointment, so that she could sideline the candidate preferred by Cummings and his team? Carrie. 'Carrie basically used Allegra,' a No 10 insider told me, 'and then when she didn't need her any more, she dumped her.'

    PS sorry to hear about your family medical issues.
    Thank you but at least a night of stress ended positively
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,046
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Completely agree. Politicians are human (mostly). Of course they listen to their significant others and show an interest in what interests them. Anybody and everybody in a relationship does this. This is pathetic.
    There is a range to these things, but instant dismissal I think is an unreasonable response.

    It is absurd and unrealistic to think that someone's spouse or partner will not have a significant influence on them as a person, and on how they approach developing policy and government in general. Expecting no influence whatsoever is a ridiculous demand.

    It does not follow, however, that a spouse or partner should reportedly therefore be driving decisions to which they cannot be accountable through a network of allies, that is seeking to be an active participant in political gamesmanship. If she is so active, that opens her up to fair challenge, as it would for the wives and, on rare occasions, husbands, of past PMs.

    Now, with Carrie I suspect part of what is going on is bleedage from the Cummings stuff, and others going after Boris through her rather than at Boris himself (which people already do but isnt bearing fruit yet), and yes some misogyny because of her age and background as one of Boris's many mistresses.

    So I think in such things it's right and proper to be alert to misogynistic motivation, but simple dismissal of legitimate concerns if she is attempting to be an active participant in political maneuvering, is over correction.

    Taking advice from a partner is natural and right, and cannot and should not be eliminated. But if, and it remains an if, a partner is operating informally as a power broker in their own right, as Dom saw himself too, that is an actual issue.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,777
    edited April 2021

    MaxPB said:

    Does anyone know why Allegra is suddenly out of favour?

    Apparently she is in charge of communications for the climate conference in Glasgow
    Yes, a significant demotion.
    As Hodges puts it:

    Second, the decision to axe plans for live Downing Street media briefings, and dispense with the services of media chief Allegra Stratton. Who lobbied strongly for Stratton's appointment, so that she could sideline the candidate preferred by Cummings and his team? Carrie. 'Carrie basically used Allegra,' a No 10 insider told me, 'and then when she didn't need her any more, she dumped her.'

    PS sorry to hear about your family medical issues.
    Carrie trying to keep other women away from Boris, I expect.
    We aren't allowed to talk about [ ] and [ ] having [ ] remember...
    I think it's a widely know fact that Boris is a philanderer, without needing to go into any specific detail.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859
    edited April 2021

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    ministers are claiming that Johnson is *entirely* focused on the pandemic, also no one is denying he personally called newspaper editors to brief against Cummings
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1386236827812704257

    That he did so himself, despite the fact that what he had to say appears very likely to have been a pack of lies, speaks volumes. Either he is so desperate that he felt he had to add his own personal weight to the briefings to the press, or he is running out of people willing to tell lies on his behalf?
    The question is why Boris was personally spinning a line that was bound to unravel as soon as the recipients called Cummings. Too much red wine or a dead cat?
    I still think that they are trying to get Cummings into the media now for fear of what would otherwise be an explosive set of revelations at the Select Committee.

    The tactic used against Mercer - the moment they found out he planned a dramatic resignation from the despatch box, they leaked his resignation to the press themselves (despite it being a bad news story for them) - was precisely the same. Something dribbled out to and chewed over by the media (particularly at a time when there's other news around) is a lot less risky than an explosion of a story on what could turn out to be a slow news day.

    He did it himself, either to make sure it was taken seriously, or because no-one else was willing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,159

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    I bet a chunk of it went on someone to design and project manage and buy the stuff, their being too busy to do so themselves.

    Farrow & Ball, to give it the correct name, has an attractive chalky matt appearance, if you dont mind having to paint four coats to get a decent finish. And if you so much as brush against it thereafter, you'll have a mark to repair or a patch of paint might simply drop off the wall.
    Agreed - we match to their String colour
    Yes, I can see that.

    However we are currently trending to fewer deaths per pop than the EU average, so it will not

    A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    I ask this rather politely but have you been on that wonderful Scots whisky produced nearby
    Not this morning!

    To throw the question back at you, are you suggesting that Cumming *hasn't* got reams of evidence? He was notoriously running an information gathering operation, and is already reported taking the information to every meeting he went to.

    He's got it, he'll use it. Hard for people to forgive the PM ignoring the science and killing their grandma.
    That story won't be that clear imo.

    When people look for context in 3 to 6 months, they will find us in the middle of the stats for big european countries.

    Brexit politics will ensure that side also gets airtime, especially if EUCo are still punching random bystanders like an aggressive drunk in a pub brawl.


    Considering the systematic under-reporting of deaths across much of Europe - and the over-reporting of deaths here - its almost certain that UK excess deaths will be below average not above it by the end of the day.
    Deaths are not over reported here, particularly for the global comparison stats.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,032
    MattW said:

    Fishing said:

    malcolmg said:

    Fishing said:

    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    A drop in the ocean compared to the £414m spent on the Scottish Parliament building.
    Or indeed the £12 billion to refurbish the Palace of Westminster.
    The addled halfwit does not count such things, talks through his union jack underpants.
    Ignoring the usual abuse, they are rather different because the £12 billion I understand is an international obligation because the Palace of Westminster is a World Heritage site, while the Scottish Parliament was a newbuild. Either way it is an eye-watering sum of money - £500 from every family in the country.
    IIRC the original budget for Hollyrood was .... £37m.
    Yes, I think the original estimate for refurbishing Parliament was a tiny fraction of the current guess. Contractors see a soft touch when it comes to government, and their procurement people are rarely incentivised to keep costs down.
  • A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    And then, Cummings at the Committee. He is going to turn up and do one of him uber-arrogant but calm and measured demolition jobs. And when someone asks how we can trust his word after Barnard Castle, he simply produces the evidence.

    The hacks are already talking about how he walked up and down Whitehall in his final weeks with the medical evidence that the PM was ignoring - he will still have all of that and a whole lot more.

    Its easy to deflect allegations - Boris gives tax breaks to party donors, Boris gets patrons to pay his £250k decorating bill, Boris hands out £107m contracts for PPE to friends with no experience of PPE - your average man in the pub garden does all of that, he's just one of the lads isn't he?

    But when its deaths. Tens of thousands of deaths. That wouldn't have died had Liar listened to the scientists. That will provoke a blizzard of Daily Heil stories where grieving people vent their anger. And then the whole house on the sand implodes. All the stuff that happened and was dismissed as unpatriotic - the government saying they follow the science, then the government saying the science is only part of the process and ministers make the decisions, then the government following the science again - it will all be hurled against him to bury him.

    And at the end? A new Tory PM who will ride a popularity wave as the UK moves into recovery. Poor Keir - he won't get a look in.

    I ask this rather politely but have you been on that wonderful Scots whisky produced nearby
    Not this morning!

    To throw the question back at you, are you suggesting that Cumming *hasn't* got reams of evidence? He was notoriously running an information gathering operation, and is already reported taking the information to every meeting he went to.

    He's got it, he'll use it. Hard for people to forgive the PM ignoring the science and killing their grandma.
    I have no doubt he has but remember that the decisions throughout this pandemic were largely followed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

    I dislike your 'killing their grandma' reference intensely, but nowhere in the UK was that more true than in care homes in Scotland under Sturgeon
    I dislike it intensely as well. But it happened as a direct result of government policy.

    They we have the Christmas fiasco. The 5 day cease-fire where Covid wouldn't infect you. Boris saves Christmas spake the Daily Heil. Then after a LOT of pressure he drops it to a 1 day cease-fire. And in January the Covid peak almost overwhelms the NHS.

    He is desperate not to have to answer to an enquiry into this. But it is coming. And it will absolutely finish him. When Cummings sits there at the committee, calmly states what happened, how the PM ignored it AND produces the evidence, I don't think we'll need to wait very long for the enquiry.

    Remember that this government have gone from following the science to ignoring the science to following the science without a second's thought. Or as the BMJ puts it - hiding behind the science then hiding from the science. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/12/23/as-covid-19-has-progressed-ministers-have-gone-from-hiding-behind-the-science-to-hiding-from-the-science/
    And how do you excuse Sturgeon, Drakeford and Foster in all this

    This pandemic and its mistakes were shared by all four nations

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,414
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Hodges gives Carrie both barrels this morning. Oh what larks! Pass the popcorn.


    "In December 2019, the people handed Boris an overwhelming majority. But they did not hand it to his girlfriend."

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9507629/DAN-HODGES-Britain-votes-Prime-Ministers-not-partners.html

    It's an open secret within Westminster how Ms Symonds's influence extends over government. As another No 10 insider told me: 'It's not that you get a phone call direct from her demanding something. What happens is Boris will suddenly turn up one morning and say, 'Er, what are we doing about badgers?' It won't be something he has any interest in. So we all know it comes from Carrie.'

    Ministers attempt to appease her and her whims, because they know it's the only way to keep their careers on track. Journalists appease her for fear of being ostracised by the No 10 communications team she helped build. Or because they benefit personally from her briefings. Or because they fear the cabal of sycophants she surrounds herself with will turn on them, and issue one of their ritualistic denunciations of 'sexism'.

    But worst of all is the way the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom continues to appease her.

    Team Carrie needs to disband. The 'friends' need to go. The unofficial press operation needs to go. The lobbying on policy, appointments and strategy needs to stop. And the next roll of wallpaper needs to be paid for out of her own pocket, not from some Tory fat cat. Because if these things don't happen, then it won't be Ms Symonds who ultimately pays the price. The nation will.

    Back in 2019, I said the Prime Minister had to choose between his team and Team Carrie. Today the choice is even starker. What does Boris care about most? His fiancee? Or his country?
    What absolute misogynistic bullshit.

    So is Boris not supposed to speak to his fiancée or take an interest in issues that interest her? Should women be seen but not heard.
    Cummings and others need to take care in attacking Carrie as it will rightly be labelled misogyny
    But it’s definitely fair game to ask about her role in the No.10 operation, given that she holds no formal position.
    And can't be sacked.
    Not sure about that, given Johnson's track record.

    And I'm not sure that, until the Barnard Castle episode, Cummings honesty was much in question. Nasty, devious piece of work, yes, saboteur of his country's interests, yes, but within those parameters, generally speaking he told it as he saw it.
    Our PM on the other hand has, as someone said, IIRC, 'never knowingly told the truth.'
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,361

    As @thetimesscot reports IFS research to show Scotland’s deficit is over £40bn (22-25% of GDP) a reminder Nicola Sturgeon pledges current spending plans would be guaranteed in independent Scotland. Also, over time, saving enough reserves to set up a new currency & join EU.

    https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/status/1386234454130241539?s=20

    Deficit
    Pensions
    Currency
    Borders

    The SNP has no realistic response to any of these.
    Abuse seems to be the default response of cybernats.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399
    AnneJGP said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    That is the irony. We are in danger of airbrushing slavery out of history.
    It was hundreds of years ago , give it a break , no-one nowadays has any clue about it and does not give a flying F*** about it either, apart from a few nutjobs who will move on to the crusades soon and cavemen after that.
    I'd rather we learned from the past to crack down on modern-day slavery. A much better form of atonement for past sins.

    Good morning, everybody.
    Indeed. But that might require us to actually do something and face some tough choices, so we prefer to compete with how unimplicated our families were then, and how diverse our families are today, so we can give ourselves cover to criticise others instead, and thus feel better about ourselves.

    It's all remarkably self-indulgent stuff.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,127
    edited April 2021
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9508881/Dominic-Cummings-blame-King-Lear-Boris-Johnson-personally-UKs-massive-Covid-death-toll.html

    "Mr Cummings is said to be preparing to hand 'kompromat' - damaging private material - on Mr Johnson to MPs when he appears before a Covid inquiry in May, showing that the PM's intransigence contributed to the huge second wave of deaths last winter. Downing Street furiously denies that Mr Johnson made a graphic remark - in which he is said to have ruled out any more 'f****** lockdowns', regardless of the 'bodies' - in front of what are said to have been 'shocked' political and civil service advisers."

    This has the potential to be much more damaging for No.10 than what he's managed to cook up up to now.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,114

    Fairly or otherwise this redecorating of No.10 reminds me of this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUnvgKhWZdI

    Or this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR5isk80z8Q&t=125s
  • https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9508881/Dominic-Cummings-blame-King-Lear-Boris-Johnson-personally-UKs-massive-Covid-death-toll.html

    "Mr Cummings is said to be preparing to hand 'kompromat' - damaging private material - on Mr Johnson to MPs when he appears before a Covid inquiry in May, showing that the PM's intransigence contributed to the huge second wave of deaths last winter. Downing Street furiously denies that Mr Johnson made a graphic remark - in which he is said to have ruled out any more 'f****** lockdowns', regardless of the 'bodies' - in front of what are said to have been 'shocked' political and civil service advisers."

    This has the potential to be much more damaging for No.10 than what he's cooked up so far.

    To be honest whilst I am loathed to believe Cummings it makes perfect sense why we locked down so late if this was Johnson's attitude to it.

    I thought it was just genuine incompetence but if he was genuinely against the idea until the last minute, it makes sense why he locked down so late.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399
    Sean_F said:

    A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    And then, Cummings at the Committee. He is going to turn up and do one of him uber-arrogant but calm and measured demolition jobs. And when someone asks how we can trust his word after Barnard Castle, he simply produces the evidence.

    The hacks are already talking about how he walked up and down Whitehall in his final weeks with the medical evidence that the PM was ignoring - he will still have all of that and a whole lot more.

    Its easy to deflect allegations - Boris gives tax breaks to party donors, Boris gets patrons to pay his £250k decorating bill, Boris hands out £107m contracts for PPE to friends with no experience of PPE - your average man in the pub garden does all of that, he's just one of the lads isn't he?

    But when its deaths. Tens of thousands of deaths. That wouldn't have died had Liar listened to the scientists. That will provoke a blizzard of Daily Heil stories where grieving people vent their anger. And then the whole house on the sand implodes. All the stuff that happened and was dismissed as unpatriotic - the government saying they follow the science, then the government saying the science is only part of the process and ministers make the decisions, then the government following the science again - it will all be hurled against him to bury him.

    And at the end? A new Tory PM who will ride a popularity wave as the UK moves into recovery. Poor Keir - he won't get a look in.

    In general, the public are willing to cut the government a lot of slack over Covid.
    Also, the trouble with Cummings criticising Boris on Covid is that the public really will see it as a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,846
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:
    Interesting but not very informative. I use Deliveroo six to eight times a week and do not understand the economics for the drivers (cars and scooters far outweigh the cyclists round here) or the restaurants or Deliveroo itself. The article confirms the company is not profitable, and the IPO was disappointing so perhaps I was partly right to be sceptical but I'm not much the wiser about how it is supposed to work.
    The most interesting bit is how they are creating their own dark kitchens and taking people and/or recipes from the most popular restaurants in house
    Some pizza places have been doing that for years -- running delivery-only outlets. Whether dark kitchens will help Deliveroo or just add to the expense is something I'm not sure about. Will dark kitchens provide the range? Maybe 80 per cent of customers only use 20 per cent of the menu but sometimes range and flexibility is important too.

    Ah, maybe that is the sinister part. It is not possible to send ad hoc instructions to a restaurant to, say, hold the mayonnaise. I think there used to be (possibly I'm wrong). Deliveroo might argue this is the restaurants' fault for not making their menus flexible enough but it will remove an advantage over dark kitchens.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,399

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9508881/Dominic-Cummings-blame-King-Lear-Boris-Johnson-personally-UKs-massive-Covid-death-toll.html

    "Mr Cummings is said to be preparing to hand 'kompromat' - damaging private material - on Mr Johnson to MPs when he appears before a Covid inquiry in May, showing that the PM's intransigence contributed to the huge second wave of deaths last winter. Downing Street furiously denies that Mr Johnson made a graphic remark - in which he is said to have ruled out any more 'f****** lockdowns', regardless of the 'bodies' - in front of what are said to have been 'shocked' political and civil service advisers."

    This has the potential to be much more damaging for No.10 than what he's managed to cook up thus far.

    I'm not sure. We all felt like that last autumn, including me. I can imagine spitting out expletives in frustration before bowing to the inevitable.

    What yanks my chain about Boris is doing contracts and favours for mates - fuelled by people like DC trying to leverage it.

    I hate stuff like that.
  • dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,114

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    That fits my experience.
  • The Government should allow unlimited phone mast building, screw the NIMBYs
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,414
    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    That fits my experience.
    And the campaign currently running locally.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,046
    edited April 2021

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Newts and bats can end up delaying years and costing millions (albeit law matters there not just NIMBYs), it's one area I sympathise with developers.

    As you say it's a disconnect between central demands and provincial desires.

    The government sees the planning system as a means of facilitating development. People see it as a means to prevent it. That's why they get so angry at it when it doesn't help them. They also forget that sheer numbers doesn't really matter. Oh, it will help sway Cllrs to some degree, but if you have a thousand people pushing an indefensible reason for refusal, it will simply get overturned even if only one person, the applicant, argues against it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    MattW said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    Charles said:

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    The asset remains in public ownership. No one is being given anything.
    A sensible compromise might be for government buildings to be decorated to a schedule by the estate managers, as opposed to allowing the incumbent occupant free rein over the design and fit out.

    Most of the incumbents and their families won’t have much experience in Grade I refurbs, and don’t see where the money actually goes.
    Possibly, although design should be left to the incumbent.

    The issue will be - I suspect - that Carrie went for Farrer & Ball paint rather than doing what normal people doing and going to Homebase to colour match a sample pot
    I bet a chunk of it went on someone to design and project manage and buy the stuff, their being too busy to do so themselves.

    Farrow & Ball, to give it the correct name, has an attractive chalky matt appearance, if you dont mind having to paint four coats to get a decent finish. And if you so much as brush against it thereafter, you'll have a mark to repair or a patch of paint might simply drop off the wall.
    Agreed - we match to their String colour
    Yes, I can see that.

    However we are currently trending to fewer deaths per pop than the EU average, so it will not

    A smart opposition - Keir / Rishi etc - will continue to drip feed Boris sleaze stories over the next month. Keep the smoke blowing from the unseen fire so that even the strongest Boris fanbois have to admit there is a fire.

    I ask this rather politely but have you been on that wonderful Scots whisky produced nearby
    Not this morning!

    To throw the question back at you, are you suggesting that Cumming *hasn't* got reams of evidence? He was notoriously running an information gathering operation, and is already reported taking the information to every meeting he went to.

    He's got it, he'll use it. Hard for people to forgive the PM ignoring the science and killing their grandma.
    That story won't be that clear imo.

    When people look for context in 3 to 6 months, they will find us in the middle of the stats for big european countries.

    Brexit politics will ensure that side also gets airtime, especially if EUCo are still punching random bystanders like an aggressive drunk in a pub brawl.


    Considering the systematic under-reporting of deaths across much of Europe - and the over-reporting of deaths here - its almost certain that UK excess deaths will be below average not above it by the end of the day.
    Deaths are not over reported here, particularly for the global comparison stats.
    Yes they are.

    https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker

    UK has 149,570 deaths reported versus 121,850 excess.
    Italy has 86,490 deaths reported versus 116,410 excess.
This discussion has been closed.