Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
It definitely is, their "prosecution" of the Leave campaigns was nakedly political and their "judgement" was struck down by the courts.
If there is nothing to see that will no doubt be the ultimate result. The obfuscation at the moment would suggest that may not be the outcome.
I did NOT have decorating relations with that woman.....(crikey whats her name again) er...er..er..Miss Symonds
Tbh, I don't care one way or the other, I'd rather see Boris get done on something substantial not this kind of tittle tattle. There's so much to go after him on, the whole fucking second wave of the virus, for example and yet here we are arguing about who paid for some wallpaper.
Fair point, but, whether it is a fair or unfair analogy, Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion! But to be serious, the wallpaper is not the issue. The lying and obfuscation is a symptom of a wider malaise perhaps?
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
It definitely is, their "prosecution" of the Leave campaigns was nakedly political and their "judgement" was struck down by the courts.
If there is nothing to see that will no doubt be the ultimate result. The obfuscation at the moment would suggest that may not be the outcome.
I did NOT have decorating relations with that woman.....(crikey whats her name again) er...er..er..Miss Symonds
Tbh, I don't care one way or the other, I'd rather see Boris get done on something substantial not this kind of tittle tattle. There's so much to go after him on, the whole fucking second wave of the virus, for example and yet here we are arguing about who paid for some wallpaper.
Fair point, but, whether it is a fair or unfair analogy, Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion! But to be serious, the wallpaper is not the issue. The lying and obfuscation is a symptom of a wider malaise perhaps?
Let's list the possibilities.
1a Boris is shamed out of office for personal reasons, along the lines of David Mellor or Robin Cook. Not going to happen, because he's shameless.
1b Boris has such a calamitous policy failure that he's shamed out of office, along the lines of David Cameron. Not going to happen, because yada yada.
2 Boris is toppled by the party, as happened to Mrs T. That needs the party to decide that he's failed and that there's a plausible successor out there. Not going to happen for a long time.
3 Boris loses a general election. Not before 2024 at the earliest, he doesn't.
Conclusion: Boris won't go quickly for normal political reasons, because he's not a normal politician. That leaves two possibilities I can see.
4 Boris goes off in a huff when "we hail King Boris" turns into "we hate King Boris". Unlikely, but less unlikely with BoJo than with most of his predecessors, I suspect.
5 He does something that gets him into trouble with someone with external power and immunity to his blundering charm. Like the Electoral Commission or the District Auditor.
Have I missed anything?
6 He is persuaded to stand down by Carrie for health reasons, most likely relating to long COVID symptoms. Unlikely, but possible.
7 He becomes the only politician ever to realise his best bet of being remembered kindly is to leave on his own terms, at the height of his popularity. Unlikely because of lack of precedent.
We're at herd immunity already I expect. The big questions to be asked should be why its still illegal to meet others indoors for another three weeks.
No chance restrictions should be coming back once they're removed already. Well done UK and the Government have done a great job on the real issues of the day.
We can easily tell when we reach herd immunity.
If cases remain fairly constant (which they are; possibly declining slightly), then we are at an R of close to 1 under current restrictions. Accordingly, unless current restrictions are negligible or false positives are significant (with a positivity rate of 0.8% and demonstrated false positivity rates under 0.05%, they are not), we aren't at herd immunity without restrictions yet.
Personally, I think we could take the risk of bringing the 17th of May relaxations forwards by a couple of weeks, but they would likely result in a bit of a climb in cases (although not necessarily much of a climb in hospitalisations and deaths).
But we'd know if we were close to herd immunity without restrictions, because the effective R value with restrictions would be noticeably under 0.5, with cases halving more rapidly than once per week. We're getting there, but we're not there yet.
No cut through from Keir at all. What a waste of time he is. Keep dreaming of power Labour!
Oh it won't get Labour into power. But the law is explicit as is the ministerial code. If as alleged the PM has taken monies and not properly declared them, what me and thee think is irrelevant.
I remember before the last election and Jess Phillips was on. She was asked what she thought of Boris Johnson and she replied '"He's a loyer. He's just a loyer. I can't believe he could become Proime Minister!
At that moment I thought she'd make a great Labour leader. No airs and graces and someone prepared to speak their mind.
She's just what Labour needed and still do. We have a lying puffball of a Prime Minister and we need someone straight talking enough to be heard.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
The flat is clearly the bigger issue than the pile the bodies high comment. I actually think Boris could be in trouble on this.
Agreed. The subterfuge on the flat, not the actual work or the cost. Also the cancelling of a leak inquiry for fear of it fingering a friend of Carrie. And the Patel bullying thing. And not bothering to replace the ethics advisor. Etc. All this sort of stuff. It's mounting up.
The "bodies" comment is not for me a big issue. Then again, it might be the one that cuts through with the public. So the least serious matter is the one that does the most damage. It can happen this way sometimes. Remember "duckhouse". People latch onto things.
Tbh, I don't care one way or the other, I'd rather see Boris get done on something substantial not this kind of tittle tattle. There's so much to go after him on, the whole fucking second wave of the virus, for example and yet here we are arguing about who paid for some wallpaper.
The problem, from a political perspective, with the Covid comments is there is (so far) no proof.
The value of wallpapergate is that there are receipts.
Rubbish, the reason they can't go for COVID is because Starmer has been completely useless and supported all of the rubbish decisions the government has made. If Labour had actually properly opposed some of the bad decisions on not having managed quarantine for all incoming travel then they'd have a narrative.
This is going to end up as something that blue ticks on twitter wank themselves silly over but passes the wider public by completey.
That only goes half way, if that. Why not close the borders. No entry to non-residents other than for very limited essential humanitarian reasins, for which proof is required. Residents required to obtain exit visa before leaving, again for limited essential reasons (or if they don't intend returning)
On the topic of first jobs. I worked Saturdays on the checkouts in Waitrose in 1994. £2.40/hour.
Student nurse, 1968, £360 per annum.
Good morning, everyone.
IT analyst, Ciba-Geigy Switzerland, 1977. £29,000/year - I asked for £25K and their HR guy smiled gently and said "we can do better than that". I was gobsmacked - I'd been unemployed for nearly 2 years after getting my PhD and was living off my parents. People with good careers sometimes think it just reflected their personal merits - I've never underestimated the importance of sheer luck. A few years later I was asked to set up the internet systems management unit just as the internet was taking off, which was a job that couldn't possibly go wrong, and by 1997 I was getting £90K and took a 50% pay cut to come back to the UK for Parliament.
First job: in the fields close to my home, for 40 hours per week at £1.50 per hour in 1989. Checking inflation, that's £3.76 per hour today, so I was right to feel hard done by. I only did it between GCSEs and starting Sixth Form.
The following year, I got a job at Little Chef for the dizzying heights of £2.40 per hour (£5.50 per hour adjusted for inflation)
1a Boris is shamed out of office for personal reasons, along the lines of David Mellor or Robin Cook. Not going to happen, because he's shameless.
1b Boris has such a calamitous policy failure that he's shamed out of office, along the lines of David Cameron. Not going to happen, because yada yada.
2 Boris is toppled by the party, as happened to Mrs T. That needs the party to decide that he's failed and that there's a plausible successor out there. Not going to happen for a long time.
3 Boris loses a general election. Not before 2024 at the earliest, he doesn't.
Conclusion: Boris won't go quickly for normal political reasons, because he's not a normal politician. That leaves two possibilities I can see.
4 Boris goes off in a huff when "we hail King Boris" turns into "we hate King Boris". Unlikely, but less unlikely with BoJo than with most of his predecessors, I suspect.
5 He does something that gets him into trouble with someone with external power and immunity to his blundering charm. Like the Electoral Commission or the District Auditor.
Have I missed anything?
6 He is persuaded to stand down by Carrie for health reasons, most likely relating to long COVID symptoms. Unlikely, but possible.
7 He becomes the only politician ever to realise his best bet of being remembered kindly is to leave on his own terms, at the height of his popularity. Unlikely because of lack of precedent.
8. He leaves as he needs to earn decent money elsewhere
I suspect a combination of 7 and 8 will allow him to leave in 2022 without much difficulty potentially using 6 as another reason (would give him some added sympathy).
Boris completely rattled. Starmer's got him on the record in Parliament - job done; now we await the further leaks and info to show that he has now lied to the Commons...
Boris angry and fighting final response to Starmer ended with more, more from his back benchers
The Labour benches enjoyed his rant as much as the Tories benches, albeit for different reasons.
Ultimately the law is the law. If he has broken the law and the ministerial code, he will have to go. Unless the law and the ministerial code (complete with forward by Boris Johnson) do not apply to Boris Johnson and you and other PB Tories are happy with that.
Incidentally, note his responses on the 2nd and 3rd questions. He didn't answer that he had paid the initial invoice. He said he had covered it. He said that he would make whatever declarations he was asked to do - so he hasn't declared the monies.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
Boris completely rattled. Starmer's got him on the record in Parliament - job done; now we await the further leaks and info to show that he has now lied to the Commons...
I don't think it would even matter if it was proven beyond all doubt that he lied to the Commons. People would just say: "so what?".
Can you name any other PM that got an undeclared bung from a donor to do it?
So no you can't. How am I supposed to know what hasn't been declared by previous PMs - it is by your own definition undeclared. You are absolutely clueless. I don't even like Boris but idiots like you spouting garbage that is plainly ridiculous to anyone with 2 seconds access to Google, end up with me defending him. I would do the same with a Labour PM. Frankly the country has bigger problems than wallpaper in the PMs official residence.
Starmer is being very boring and lawyerly with this, Boris full of passion. Quite a remarkable difference.
Attempting to be impartial... Magnified the strengths and weaknesses of both leaders today. Full of passion, yes. But absolutely zero questions answered. So they don't go away. Boring and lawyerly. No cut through. Could also be seen as calm and level headed. But again the questions havent been answered.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
The flat is clearly the bigger issue than the pile the bodies high comment. I actually think Boris could be in trouble on this.
Agreed. The subterfuge on the flat, not the actual work or the cost. Also the cancelling of a leak inquiry for fear of it fingering a friend of Carrie. And the Patel bullying thing. And not bothering to replace the ethics advisor. Etc. All this sort of stuff. It's mounting up.
The "bodies" comment is not for me a big issue. Then again, it might be the one that cuts through with the public. So the least serious matter is the one that does the most damage. It can happen this way sometimes. Remember "duckhouse". People latch onto things.
But the duck house was on the MP's own property.
Even if the funding of the Downing Street redecoration proves to be outside the rules, I doubt it will have the same resonance because at the end of the day, he's only there because he's the PM.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a toss about the ministerial code...
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a toss about the ministerial code...
Of course that's different to the question of whether people should give a toss about the ministerial code.
I personally think people should give a toss. Otherwise, why even have it? Why even have any rules or standards?
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
You think that passion was ranting?
A week before the local elections only one leader today brought up Council Tax, housing, vaccinations, ventilators, jobs, nurses, police and more - and it wasn't the Leader of the Opposition.
Boris completely rattled. Starmer's got him on the record in Parliament - job done; now we await the further leaks and info to show that he has now lied to the Commons...
I don't think it would even matter if it was proven beyond all doubt he lied to the Commons. People would just say: "so what?".
Like many I did very long hours in my twenties but do discourage it now as a manager. I find the best employees work maybe 5-10% longer than contracted but are extremely well organised and use their time wisely. Skills I sadly lack and end up "wasting" time on here.
Those who work really long hours are often harder to manage and in my experience not particularly more productive.
Good luck to @Gallowgate - my advice is head down and graft but with your eyes open. Just get past that magic one year experience to clean up your cv then do one to a much better paid role unless they massively improve your deal. Taking notes is good advice but really you are looking to run down the clock past 12 months.
I'd suggest 1.5-2 years as a prospective employer, but if it's really awful you can probably get away with 12 months and then 12-18 months again at a slightly better job with the the third one being a longer term bet.
The short-term aim is to secure a training contract, hopefully at the firm I'll be working at. That'll pull my salary up to the mid-to-high 20s straight away. My new manager knows this is my goal, and paralegals are expected to jump ship ASAP if they get offered a training contract, so that works in my favour.
I cannot see what the problem is.
You, as a newly qualified or underqualified person sign a contract to work for a certain number of hours at the minimum wage.
You then decide to put in extra hours, free of charge, in order to impress your employer. You do this in the hope/expectation that they will be so impressed by your enthusiasm, ability etc etc that they offer you something more highly paid.
You then come on here complaining about being paid less than the minimum wage, and wondering how to use the law to force your employers to pay you more.
If I were your employer and were aware of all this, I do not think I would renew our contract.
It is illegal for employers to structure work like this. It is up to them to manage the number of hours an employee works to stay within NMW guidelines. That is definitely an issue, albeit one which it is not in the employee's interest to tackle.
The societal impact is less social mobility as it is easier for those with wealthy families to take on these gateway jobs.
But who has structured the work? The case as presented lacks clarity on this point.
It could be that the employee has taken the work home with him in order to have it completed by the next day, thus giving the appearance of working just the approved office hours, but being extraordinarily competent.
Boris completely rattled. Starmer's got him on the record in Parliament - job done; now we await the further leaks and info to show that he has now lied to the Commons...
I don't think it would even matter if it was proven beyond all doubt that he lied to the Commons. People would just say: "so what?".
The 6 Million Dollar question. The allegation is that the PM has illegally failed to declare donations. Lets follow the scenario and the Electoral Commission are prosecuting him and the Cabinet Office permanent secretary has found that the PM has breached the ministerial code.
Any other minister in any other government would have to resign in disgrace. The *only* defence the Tories would have left is that the man in the street is happy to have a PM who breaks the law because who cares.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a toss about the ministerial code...
What the electors care about is clear leadership and action in dealing with Covid - this government has led the world in vaccinations and protecting business, the economy and jobs.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a toss about the ministerial code...
Of course that's different to the question of whether people should give a toss about the ministerial code.
I personally think people should give a toss. Otherwise, why even have it? Why even have any rules or standards?
PB Tories out in force backing their leader, I am shocked!
PB anti-Tories out in force attacking our leader for no reason, I am shocked!
Partisanship cuts both ways.
I think after today, there is a dangerous problem coming for Boris though.
Boris trump card is the vaccination programme, but where does it actually leave us and the COVID fight?
The situation in India can only mean more aggressive vaccine nationalism going forward. After what is happening there, why have Indian factories all year been vaccinating Britain?
On the topic of first jobs. I worked Saturdays on the checkouts in Waitrose in 1994. £2.40/hour.
Student nurse, 1968, £360 per annum.
Good morning, everyone.
IT analyst, Ciba-Geigy Switzerland, 1977. £29,000/year - I asked for £25K and their HR guy smiled gently and said "we can do better than that". I was gobsmacked - I'd been unemployed for nearly 2 years after getting my PhD and was living off my parents. People with good careers sometimes think it just reflected their personal merits - I've never underestimated the importance of sheer luck. A few years later I was asked to set up the internet systems management unit just as the internet was taking off, which was a job that couldn't possibly go wrong, and by 1997 I was getting £90K and took a 50% pay cut to come back to the UK for Parliament.
First job: in the fields close to my home, for 40 hours per week at £1.50 per hour in 1989. Checking inflation, that's £3.76 per hour today, so I was right to feel hard done by. I only did it between GCSEs and starting Sixth Form.
The following year, I got a job at Little Chef for the dizzying heights of £2.40 per hour (£5.50 per hour adjusted for inflation)
First job: on the production line in the Pampers factory in Trafford Park, summer of 1994. £4-£5 an hour, depending on shift. Boring job, but well-paid. I was a pallet-whacker. My role was to smooth down the cellophane that the machine had left incompetently sticking out on the boxes of nappies on the pallet before they passed through the size checker before they were loaded onto lorries; or sometimes to hit any boxes which were sticking out with a baseball bat to get them aligned properly. I don't think this was a role which was specifically envisaged when the production line was set up. Next summer I got a job delivering pizzas around suburban southwest Stockport. Slightly less well paid, but rarely boring,
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
Or angry
Of course he's angry. Why? because he has tried desperately over the past year to court the commentariat and the liberal soft left. Still, they are coming for him.
You can read today from James Dyson the deceptions the BBC spun around his relations with Boris. And that's from Kuenssberg, one of the better of the this dreadful mob. And now they are coming over flat refurbishments.
Perhaps finally, finally, Boris will get the idea there is no pleasing these people if you are a tory. So stop trying. Take a leaf out of DeSantis' book. The more they are squealing, the better you are doing.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
You think that passion was ranting?
A week before the local elections only one leader today brought up Council Tax, housing, vaccinations, ventilators, jobs, nurses, police and more - and it wasn't the Leader of the Opposition.
Ranting is always impassioned! I don't think this will make a dramatic difference to the elections next week. Its a longer game than that.
Its back to the point I have made on one side and @BluestBlue has made on the other side: Does the Prime Minister have to obey his own laws and behave with the integrity he demands in his ministerial code?
The rule of law is pretty straight forward. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Dislike of the law is no defence. If it is acceptable to break this law is that specific only to this law or in general? Does the principle of the rule of law not apply to certain types of people or in general?
Nobody may give a toss about this law. Will they give a toss about the laws that defend them against rape or assault or murder or fraud? Why should anyone obey any law if we can just disregard them?
didnt watch PMQs but Telegraph suggested there wasn't much in the way of fireworks. Sounds like Blackford using the L word was the closest we got to anything of interest.
1a Boris is shamed out of office for personal reasons, along the lines of David Mellor or Robin Cook. Not going to happen, because he's shameless.
1b Boris has such a calamitous policy failure that he's shamed out of office, along the lines of David Cameron. Not going to happen, because yada yada.
2 Boris is toppled by the party, as happened to Mrs T. That needs the party to decide that he's failed and that there's a plausible successor out there. Not going to happen for a long time.
3 Boris loses a general election. Not before 2024 at the earliest, he doesn't.
Conclusion: Boris won't go quickly for normal political reasons, because he's not a normal politician. That leaves two possibilities I can see.
4 Boris goes off in a huff when "we hail King Boris" turns into "we hate King Boris". Unlikely, but less unlikely with BoJo than with most of his predecessors, I suspect.
5 He does something that gets him into trouble with someone with external power and immunity to his blundering charm. Like the Electoral Commission or the District Auditor.
Have I missed anything?
6 He is persuaded to stand down by Carrie for health reasons, most likely relating to long COVID symptoms. Unlikely, but possible.
7 He becomes the only politician ever to realise his best bet of being remembered kindly is to leave on his own terms, at the height of his popularity. Unlikely because of lack of precedent.
8. He leaves as he needs to earn decent money elsewhere
I suspect a combination of 7 and 8 will allow him to leave in 2022 without much difficulty potentially using 6 as another reason (would give him some added sympathy).
Good spots.
The smart (and by smart, I probably mean slefish) thing would be to go on Victory over Covid day; it's likely to be downhill from there. But that's only two months from now... and being PM is a helluvan addictive drug.
1a Boris is shamed out of office for personal reasons, along the lines of David Mellor or Robin Cook. Not going to happen, because he's shameless.
1b Boris has such a calamitous policy failure that he's shamed out of office, along the lines of David Cameron. Not going to happen, because yada yada.
2 Boris is toppled by the party, as happened to Mrs T. That needs the party to decide that he's failed and that there's a plausible successor out there. Not going to happen for a long time.
3 Boris loses a general election. Not before 2024 at the earliest, he doesn't.
Conclusion: Boris won't go quickly for normal political reasons, because he's not a normal politician. That leaves two possibilities I can see.
4 Boris goes off in a huff when "we hail King Boris" turns into "we hate King Boris". Unlikely, but less unlikely with BoJo than with most of his predecessors, I suspect.
5 He does something that gets him into trouble with someone with external power and immunity to his blundering charm. Like the Electoral Commission or the District Auditor.
Have I missed anything?
6 He is persuaded to stand down by Carrie for health reasons, most likely relating to long COVID symptoms. Unlikely, but possible.
7 He becomes the only politician ever to realise his best bet of being remembered kindly is to leave on his own terms, at the height of his popularity. Unlikely because of lack of precedent.
8. He leaves as he needs to earn decent money elsewhere
I suspect a combination of 7 and 8 will allow him to leave in 2022 without much difficulty potentially using 6 as another reason (would give him some added sympathy).
He will surely be attracted by the money, challenge, and personality cults of US politics. He would do very well there imo and raise hundreds of millions of dollars.
If so prosecute him - simple. You know what the police will do - get evidence. They won't be printing off guardian columnists tweets that's for sure
Oh they will! The question is when they find that he hasn't declared the monies (and his own answer left the door wide open to that reality) will you call for his resignation?
The EU tries to blame-shift to France-Germany-Netherlands-Italy:
EU diplomats have said that the liability and indemnity issues proved to be a challenge for Commission negotiators once they tried to turn the four countries' makeshift agreement into a more solid contract.
“When we received the mandate from all member states ... a number of things were already fixed,” the EU official said. “We were not able to start from a blank sheet, which explains why the AstraZeneca contract is different from commitments with other manufacturers.”
The flat is clearly the bigger issue than the pile the bodies high comment. I actually think Boris could be in trouble on this.
Agreed. The subterfuge on the flat, not the actual work or the cost. Also the cancelling of a leak inquiry for fear of it fingering a friend of Carrie. And the Patel bullying thing. And not bothering to replace the ethics advisor. Etc. All this sort of stuff. It's mounting up.
The "bodies" comment is not for me a big issue. Then again, it might be the one that cuts through with the public. So the least serious matter is the one that does the most damage. It can happen this way sometimes. Remember "duckhouse". People latch onto things.
But the duck house was on the MP's own property.
Even if the funding of the Downing Street redecoration proves to be outside the rules, I doubt it will have the same resonance because at the end of the day, he's only there because he's the PM.
I meant it as an example of how something catchy - in this case the "piles of bodies" comment - can cut through, regardless of true intrinsic seriousness.
Me, I'd love him to be brought down by these scandals but I'm not seeing it atm. The 3.75 he goes this year is more a lay than a back imo.
On the topic of first jobs. I worked Saturdays on the checkouts in Waitrose in 1994. £2.40/hour.
Student nurse, 1968, £360 per annum.
Good morning, everyone.
IT analyst, Ciba-Geigy Switzerland, 1977. £29,000/year - I asked for £25K and their HR guy smiled gently and said "we can do better than that". I was gobsmacked - I'd been unemployed for nearly 2 years after getting my PhD and was living off my parents. People with good careers sometimes think it just reflected their personal merits - I've never underestimated the importance of sheer luck. A few years later I was asked to set up the internet systems management unit just as the internet was taking off, which was a job that couldn't possibly go wrong, and by 1997 I was getting £90K and took a 50% pay cut to come back to the UK for Parliament.
That's generous. But they were and are. Expensive place to live.
Software Engineer, straight from 4 year sponsored Uni course to UK telecomms company, Nottingham, 1988 - £9.4k .
Also software developer (the actual job title was “IT Analyst”), Hampshire County Council, April 1990, £10k. BA in history and no IT experience at all except for mucking about on my Speccy as a kid, but HCC had its own aptitude test as part of the graduate recruitment day, and I must have passed!
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
It definitely is, their "prosecution" of the Leave campaigns was nakedly political and their "judgement" was struck down by the courts.
If there is nothing to see that will no doubt be the ultimate result. The obfuscation at the moment would suggest that may not be the outcome.
I did NOT have decorating relations with that woman.....(crikey whats her name again) er...er..er..Miss Symonds
Tbh, I don't care one way or the other, I'd rather see Boris get done on something substantial not this kind of tittle tattle. There's so much to go after him on, the whole fucking second wave of the virus, for example and yet here we are arguing about who paid for some wallpaper.
Fair point, but, whether it is a fair or unfair analogy, Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion! But to be serious, the wallpaper is not the issue. The lying and obfuscation is a symptom of a wider malaise perhaps?
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
the Electoral Commission is probably full of remainers or something
It definitely is, their "prosecution" of the Leave campaigns was nakedly political and their "judgement" was struck down by the courts.
If there is nothing to see that will no doubt be the ultimate result. The obfuscation at the moment would suggest that may not be the outcome.
I did NOT have decorating relations with that woman.....(crikey whats her name again) er...er..er..Miss Symonds
Tbh, I don't care one way or the other, I'd rather see Boris get done on something substantial not this kind of tittle tattle. There's so much to go after him on, the whole fucking second wave of the virus, for example and yet here we are arguing about who paid for some wallpaper.
Fair point, but, whether it is a fair or unfair analogy, Al Capone was jailed on tax evasion! But to be serious, the wallpaper is not the issue. The lying and obfuscation is a symptom of a wider malaise perhaps?
Let's list the possibilities.
1a Boris is shamed out of office for personal reasons, along the lines of David Mellor or Robin Cook. Not going to happen, because he's shameless.
1b Boris has such a calamitous policy failure that he's shamed out of office, along the lines of David Cameron. Not going to happen, because yada yada.
2 Boris is toppled by the party, as happened to Mrs T. That needs the party to decide that he's failed and that there's a plausible successor out there. Not going to happen for a long time.
3 Boris loses a general election. Not before 2024 at the earliest, he doesn't.
Conclusion: Boris won't go quickly for normal political reasons, because he's not a normal politician. That leaves two possibilities I can see.
4 Boris goes off in a huff when "we hail King Boris" turns into "we hate King Boris". Unlikely, but less unlikely with BoJo than with most of his predecessors, I suspect.
5 He does something that gets him into trouble with someone with external power and immunity to his blundering charm. Like the Electoral Commission or the District Auditor.
Have I missed anything?
Possibility number six: Boris retires to earn the sort of money Tony Blair gets and David Cameron nearly got (he was in line for £60 million for texting Rishi, apparently). Both Blair and Cameron were younger when they left Downing Street than Boris is now.
It would not surprise me if Boris steps down for this reason once the world opens up again, possibly later this year.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a toss about the ministerial code...
What the electors care about is clear leadership and action in dealing with Covid - this government has led the world in vaccinations and protecting business, the economy and jobs.
Oh sure! But will people accept that the rule of law need not apply if you are the right sort of person? You either run or frequent pubs - can someone steal a pint or glass you? Why should the law apply if they disagree with it?
Boris completely rattled. Starmer's got him on the record in Parliament - job done; now we await the further leaks and info to show that he has now lied to the Commons...
Whilst I don't trust Boris Johnson one bit, you are rather assuming leaks and info will definitely show he lied to the Commons. He may disappoint us there.
I remember before the last election and Jess Phillips was on. She was asked what she thought of Boris Johnson and she replied '"He's a loyer. He's just a loyer. I can't believe he could become Proime Minister!
At that moment I thought she'd make a great Labour leader. No airs and graces and someone prepared to speak their mind.
She's just what Labour needed and still do. We have a lying puffball of a Prime Minister and we need someone straight talking enough to be heard.
Struggling to pick my way through the accent there. What I thought Roger was reporting Jess accusing Boris of being, was a 'lawyer'. Which is arguably the same thing as what she was actually saying, only the latter does it professionally.
I remember before the last election and Jess Phillips was on. She was asked what she thought of Boris Johnson and she replied '"He's a loyer. He's just a loyer. I can't believe he could become Proime Minister!
At that moment I thought she'd make a great Labour leader. No airs and graces and someone prepared to speak their mind.
She's just what Labour needed and still do. We have a lying puffball of a Prime Minister and we need someone straight talking enough to be heard.
What's a loyer?
Aha. Liar.
Thought you might have meant Lawyer (if there's a difference).
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
I complained to BBC - I'll let you know their response. Did you complain?
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
I'll let you in on a secret - no one gives a toss about the ministerial code...
It's all they talk about form the Black Horse. Ministerial Code this .... Parliamentary procedure that.
Boris completely rattled. Starmer's got him on the record in Parliament - job done; now we await the further leaks and info to show that he has now lied to the Commons...
I don't think it would even matter if it was proven beyond all doubt he lied to the Commons. People would just say: "so what?".
Like many I did very long hours in my twenties but do discourage it now as a manager. I find the best employees work maybe 5-10% longer than contracted but are extremely well organised and use their time wisely. Skills I sadly lack and end up "wasting" time on here.
Those who work really long hours are often harder to manage and in my experience not particularly more productive.
In a so-called death march in the dot com boom, we had programmers sleeping in the office. Fine for a couple of days but soon the net result was that they were working the same hours as before, timeshifted into the evening, and slightly drunk.
There seems to be lots of excellent news about vaccines that have won almost zero media coverage. Last night’s report on the huge cut in transmission from one dose, and today’s research about the 12-week policy being the right one.
Yet I’m still seeing Stockholm Syndrome all around me: only yesterday George Aligiah on BBC 6pm News prefaced 17 recorded deaths as “deaths are often much lower on a Monday”. It was of course Tuesday, a day which usually reports the highest totals.
What’s going on?
I complained to BBC - I'll let you know their response. Did you complain?
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
This isn't politics now, its the law. He landed enough of a blow to have the PM ranting so much at the end that the speaker advised him to calm down.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
You think that passion was ranting?
A week before the local elections only one leader today brought up Council Tax, housing, vaccinations, ventilators, jobs, nurses, police and more - and it wasn't the Leader of the Opposition.
Ranting is always impassioned! I don't think this will make a dramatic difference to the elections next week. Its a longer game than that.
Its back to the point I have made on one side and @BluestBlue has made on the other side: Does the Prime Minister have to obey his own laws and behave with the integrity he demands in his ministerial code?
The rule of law is pretty straight forward. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Dislike of the law is no defence. If it is acceptable to break this law is that specific only to this law or in general? Does the principle of the rule of law not apply to certain types of people or in general?
Nobody may give a toss about this law. Will they give a toss about the laws that defend them against rape or assault or murder or fraud? Why should anyone obey any law if we can just disregard them?
Excellent post.
We now have a bunch of PB Tories, PB Tories scuttling around saying the law doesn't matter.
I remember before the last election and Jess Phillips was on. She was asked what she thought of Boris Johnson and she replied '"He's a loyer. He's just a loyer. I can't believe he could become Proime Minister!
At that moment I thought she'd make a great Labour leader. No airs and graces and someone prepared to speak their mind.
She's just what Labour needed and still do. We have a lying puffball of a Prime Minister and we need someone straight talking enough to be heard.
What's a loyer?
Aha. Liar.
Thought you might have meant Lawyer (if there's a difference).
Of course there is - lawyers get paid for their lying.
This comment is made with humourous intent and is not to be treated as fact. PB limited accepts no liability for any comments which caused offense to this most noble of professions.
I remember before the last election and Jess Phillips was on. She was asked what she thought of Boris Johnson and she replied '"He's a loyer. He's just a loyer. I can't believe he could become Proime Minister!
At that moment I thought she'd make a great Labour leader. No airs and graces and someone prepared to speak their mind.
She's just what Labour needed and still do. We have a lying puffball of a Prime Minister and we need someone straight talking enough to be heard.
What's a loyer?
Aha. Liar.
Thought you might have meant Lawyer (if there's a difference).
Of course there is - lawyers get paid for their lying.
This comment is made with humourous intent and is not to be treated as fact. PB limited accepts no liability for any comments which caused offense to this most noble of professions.
I always think of lawyers as the only profession where the conditions of work prevent you having any personal professional ethics whatsoever that can impact on your job.
Boris completely rattled. Starmer's got him on the record in Parliament - job done; now we await the further leaks and info to show that he has now lied to the Commons...
He categorically didn’t lie to commons, he didn’t answer who initially paid.
He should have listened to Cummings really, it’s a self dug hole.
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
Yes. In my view everyone should bear some of the burden. It needs to be solved now
Having received some self test Covid kits I note it specifies these are for human use only. Abundance of caution or actual experience of people using them to test Big Fido?
I've commented a couple of times recently, not exactly in defence of Johnson, but in saying that the Dyson affair was fluff and that "bodies piled high" dedpended very much on context, but may well be defensible.
On the flat payments, I'm less sure. One of the defences being put forward here seems to be that Johnson doesn't own the flat, so where's the scandal? But if a donor offered services in kind, say the use of a luxury holiday apartment, we might ask questions about what the donor was getting in return, even though the recipient would not own the thing given. Johnson will benefit from use of the upgraded flat. From what I've seen of the planned changes, there's no tangible improvement for whoever comes next if they have taste This one has the potential to be, at least, quite embarassing.
The simplest way to determine if this is bad, is to pretend it was Keir Starmer in Downing Street.
Would the Tories be calling this out, absolutely they would. And rightfully so, it's all we would hear here day after day.
So yes, it's bad.
Naah.
Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister (stop sniggering). He decided to do up Downing Street and having said he didn't have the money to do so managed to throw absurd monies at hammer and sickle wallpaper and little busts of Lenin. The money to pay for all this was generously donated by Unite. After some unpatriotic tittle-tattle the monies were repaid (from a source that Jeremy refuses to disclose) and the required declaration made months after the legal deadline.
None of the PB Tories would have a problem with this. Obviously.
As it's a State owned property, being no personal asset to whomever the PM happens to be, who gives a flying-fuck who pays for it?
Boris Johnson cares. In the forward of the Ministerial Code where he says that Boris Johnson can't do what he has done.
Oh really?
When was the deadline for declaring anything relevant to this?
Because he had 28 days to legally declare the loan and didn't.
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
Surely the blame goes in order:-
Builders / Developers NHBC (for signing things off) Building Control (often private firms that are insured) The Freeholders (who are often the directors of the building firms, nice secondary pension fund there) The leaseholders
As a lot of Developers / Builders made significant (and excess) profits from Help to Buy it seems only fair that they should be the first to be asked to contribute.
Yes. But as with many other situations at what point does the taxpayer say - well they were ripped off so we'll pay.
It's a super difficult one. If I buy a car from a dealer's and it is not as described indeed they have broken some law or other and they fuck off, should the govt pay?
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
Surely the blame goes in order:-
Builders / Developers NHBC (for signing things off) Building Control (often private firms that are insured) The Freeholders (who are often the directors of the building firms, nice secondary pension fund there) The leaseholders
As a lot of Developers / Builders made significant (and excess) profits from Help to Buy it seems only fair that they should be the first to be asked to contribute.
Yes. But as with many other situations at what point does the taxpayer say - well they were ripped off so we'll pay.
It's a super difficult one. If I buy a car from a dealer's and it is not as described indeed they have broken some law or other and they fuck off, should the govt pay?
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
Surely the blame goes in order:-
Builders / Developers NHBC (for signing things off) Building Control (often private firms that are insured) The Freeholders (who are often the directors of the building firms, nice secondary pension fund there) The leaseholders
As a lot of Developers / Builders made significant (and excess) profits from Help to Buy it seems only fair that they should be the first to be asked to contribute.
Yes. But as with many other situations at what point does the taxpayer say - well they were ripped off so we'll pay.
It's a super difficult one. If I buy a car from a dealer's and it is not as described indeed they have broken some law or other and they fuck off, should the govt pay?
My final paragraph gives you my solution - if the flat was sold under Help to Buy (or Help to Buy was used when selling the scheme) the Builders / Developers should be paying the bill.
The Government really shouldn't be paying here - it has a 80 seat majority and using the words excess profits while pointing at Persimmons should be enough to get an act of Parliament (if required) through Parliament and get the developers to pay.
They will be in SPVs that will have since been liquidated
Another day and the PB Tories are still trying “nothing to see here, move on.”
Meanwhile the Electoral Commission opens an investigation, with reasonable grounds to believe an offence has occurred.
To those apologists who claim there are surely more important things right now than the PM’s decor, the answer is yes!
As indeed there was last year.
But while the rest of the country was struggling with a lethal pandemic and economic collapse, Boris’s current squeeze was flipping through “World of Interiors” with a credit card.
I would like to point out that I have 6+ years of experience in a salaried professional role that arose from an initial graduate role so I do know these things work. I've just never been in a position where my salaried role was so close to minimum wage, especially if there's an expectation to work many more hours than the contract stipulates.
Of course I did do the cost/benefit analysis when I accepted the role so the actual value isn't the issue — I just hadn't done the calculation in relation to minimum wage, which was quite the shock!
Ha! Next session we will be covering shoelace tying.
As you are well aware this is investment time for you. Per hr calcs are irrelevant. I'm sure a Goldman junior would be working at or below NMW but has all the benefits (or not!) of a career at GS to look forward to.
A Goldman Junior is paid around £50k so even if they're working 18 hour days, 6 days a week, that's £8.90 an hour. 1p below minimum wage for someone over the age of 23.
TBF they only work 18 hours a day Monday to Friday. Saturday and Sunday are both half days
Electoral Commission on No11: “We are now satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. We will therefore continue this work as a formal investigation to establish whether this is the case." https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387345549716860930
What’s their track record on pursuing high profile brexiteers?
On the assumption (not given) that everyone has acted within the law and in good faith it seems very harsh - and financially devastating - to make leaseholders pay.
And yet, if freeholders have followed the regulations it is tough to make them pay as well. And providing the manufacturers were making to the required standards then they haven’t broken any rules either.
It seems to me that this is somewhere the government should step in as the insurer of last resort.
Judging by some of the evidence which has come out of the inquiry a number of the builders and developers did not follow the law and/ or built properties in ways which they knew or ought to have known were unsafe. So they should be held financially responsible. Of course, if they have disappeared that is a big problem. But making a lot of voters either bankrupt or homeless or both is a brave policy. Those people have votes. Disappearing developers do not.
Yes. In my view everyone should bear some of the burden. It needs to be solved now
The questions for within the law are manufacturers who deceived regulators if so found (eg by misrepresenting insulation fire-tests), and Building Regs people if they did not find out problems when quality checking builds.
Comments
7 He becomes the only politician ever to realise his best bet of being remembered kindly is to leave on his own terms, at the height of his popularity. Unlikely because of lack of precedent.
That was jolly entertaining, much more than I expected.
If cases remain fairly constant (which they are; possibly declining slightly), then we are at an R of close to 1 under current restrictions.
Accordingly, unless current restrictions are negligible or false positives are significant (with a positivity rate of 0.8% and demonstrated false positivity rates under 0.05%, they are not), we aren't at herd immunity without restrictions yet.
Personally, I think we could take the risk of bringing the 17th of May relaxations forwards by a couple of weeks, but they would likely result in a bit of a climb in cases (although not necessarily much of a climb in hospitalisations and deaths).
But we'd know if we were close to herd immunity without restrictions, because the effective R value with restrictions would be noticeably under 0.5, with cases halving more rapidly than once per week. We're getting there, but we're not there yet.
At that moment I thought she'd make a great Labour leader. No airs and graces and someone prepared to speak their mind.
She's just what Labour needed and still do. We have a lying puffball of a Prime Minister and we need someone straight talking enough to be heard.
I didn't think Starmer had really landed a blow. But he's got to Boris. Becoming virtually hysterical at the end. It's clear he's very worried about this issue.
The "bodies" comment is not for me a big issue. Then again, it might be the one that cuts through with the public. So the least serious matter is the one that does the most damage. It can happen this way sometimes. Remember "duckhouse". People latch onto things.
Checking inflation, that's £3.76 per hour today, so I was right to feel hard done by. I only did it between GCSEs and starting Sixth Form.
The following year, I got a job at Little Chef for the dizzying heights of £2.40 per hour (£5.50 per hour adjusted for inflation)
I suspect a combination of 7 and 8 will allow him to leave in 2022 without much difficulty potentially using 6 as another reason (would give him some added sympathy).
Ultimately the law is the law. If he has broken the law and the ministerial code, he will have to go. Unless the law and the ministerial code (complete with forward by Boris Johnson) do not apply to Boris Johnson and you and other PB Tories are happy with that.
Incidentally, note his responses on the 2nd and 3rd questions. He didn't answer that he had paid the initial invoice. He said he had covered it. He said that he would make whatever declarations he was asked to do - so he hasn't declared the monies.
Magnified the strengths and weaknesses of both leaders today.
Full of passion, yes. But absolutely zero questions answered. So they don't go away.
Boring and lawyerly. No cut through. Could also be seen as calm and level headed. But again the questions havent been answered.
the Torys have made it the story by not dealing with the questions promptly enough.
Here’s a proper story, for PMQ, Labour losing Hartlepool to a sitting Conservative Government, as looks certain after Labours meltdown today.
That’s when it gets proper serious in the commons, with a politician fighting to save their career.
Either he has broken the law or he hasn't. Either he has broken the ministerial code of he hasn't. The politics no longer matters - unless people want to explain why this PM does not have to obey the law or his own ministerial code.
Even if the funding of the Downing Street redecoration proves to be outside the rules, I doubt it will have the same resonance because at the end of the day, he's only there because he's the PM.
Hopefully the voters will treat this bullsh8t issue with the contempt it deserves.
I personally think people should give a toss. Otherwise, why even have it? Why even have any rules or standards?
A week before the local elections only one leader today brought up Council Tax, housing, vaccinations, ventilators, jobs, nurses, police and more - and it wasn't the Leader of the Opposition.
Those who work really long hours are often harder to manage and in my experience not particularly more productive.
It could be that the employee has taken the work home with him in order to have it completed by the next day, thus giving the appearance of working just the approved office hours, but being extraordinarily competent.
Any other minister in any other government would have to resign in disgrace. The *only* defence the Tories would have left is that the man in the street is happy to have a PM who breaks the law because who cares.
At which point whither the rule of law?
(Joking)
Boris trump card is the vaccination programme, but where does it actually leave us and the COVID fight?
The situation in India can only mean more aggressive vaccine nationalism going forward. After what is happening there, why have Indian factories all year been vaccinating Britain?
Next summer I got a job delivering pizzas around suburban southwest Stockport. Slightly less well paid, but rarely boring,
Guy was blustering something rotten. He looked and sounded like someone who fears he's going down. Really quite something to see.
I doubt blathering on about who eventually paid will wash when the police pop round!
You can read today from James Dyson the deceptions the BBC spun around his relations with Boris. And that's from Kuenssberg, one of the better of the this dreadful mob. And now they are coming over flat refurbishments.
Perhaps finally, finally, Boris will get the idea there is no pleasing these people if you are a tory. So stop trying. Take a leaf out of DeSantis' book. The more they are squealing, the better you are doing.
Its back to the point I have made on one side and @BluestBlue has made on the other side: Does the Prime Minister have to obey his own laws and behave with the integrity he demands in his ministerial code?
The rule of law is pretty straight forward. Ignorance of the law is no defence. Dislike of the law is no defence. If it is acceptable to break this law is that specific only to this law or in general? Does the principle of the rule of law not apply to certain types of people or in general?
Nobody may give a toss about this law. Will they give a toss about the laws that defend them against rape or assault or murder or fraud? Why should anyone obey any law if we can just disregard them?
The smart (and by smart, I probably mean slefish) thing would be to go on Victory over Covid day; it's likely to be downhill from there. But that's only two months from now... and being PM is a helluvan addictive drug.
EU diplomats have said that the liability and indemnity issues proved to be a challenge for Commission negotiators once they tried to turn the four countries' makeshift agreement into a more solid contract.
“When we received the mandate from all member states ... a number of things were already fixed,” the EU official said. “We were not able to start from a blank sheet, which explains why the AstraZeneca contract is different from commitments with other manufacturers.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-was-warned-eus-astrazeneca-contract-lacked-teeth-documents/
They really should have left this alone.......
Me, I'd love him to be brought down by these scandals but I'm not seeing it atm. The 3.75 he goes this year is more a lay than a back imo.
Boris retires to earn the sort of money Tony Blair gets and David Cameron nearly got (he was in line for £60 million for texting Rishi, apparently). Both Blair and Cameron were younger when they left Downing Street than Boris is now.
It would not surprise me if Boris steps down for this reason once the world opens up again, possibly later this year.
Which is arguably the same thing as what she was actually saying, only the latter does it professionally.
Aha. Liar.
Thought you might have meant Lawyer (if there's a difference).
We now have a bunch of PB Tories, PB Tories scuttling around saying the law doesn't matter.
This is all more likely to try to keep someone or of the news.
As Ed Balls responded when asked if he kept records of the cash he paid to his handyman, of course I do I'm the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
This comment is made with humourous intent and is not to be treated as fact. PB limited accepts no liability for any comments which caused offense to this most noble of professions.
He should have listened to Cummings really, it’s a self dug hole.
Meanwhile the Electoral Commission opens an investigation, with reasonable grounds to believe an offence has occurred.
To those apologists who claim there are surely more important things right now than the PM’s decor, the answer is yes!
As indeed there was last year.
But while the rest of the country was struggling with a lethal pandemic and economic collapse, Boris’s current squeeze was flipping through “World of Interiors” with a credit card.
The “bodies piled high” was/is an attempt to divert from this “offence or offences” (Electoral Commission’s wording).
The other thing they are trying to ignore is Boris’s suggestion that a leak enquiry be quashed because Carrie’s mate was supposedly responsible.
AFAICS.