With the Electoral Commission now investigating the decoration costs Johnson has his worst PMQs to d

System

With the Electoral Commission now investigating the decoration costs Johnson has his worst PMQs to date – politicalbetting.com

Have never seen Johnson so rattled and angry at the despatch box in his final answer to Starmer – red faced and ranting at the end … denied his ‘bodies’ quote again and still didn’t answer the central Q about No 10 flat – who picked up the bill at the start

Read the full story here

DavidL

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

rottenborough

Has Starmer got the 'bodies' tape?

Seems he left a hint that he had when he made it clear lying to the House on that scale was a resignation matter. Then he moved on to wallpaper.

eek

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Everyone has a habit of showing their bias

This is however a very telling photo - Boris was definitely rattled

londonpubman

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

eek

rottenborough said:

Has Starmer got the 'bodies' tape?

Seems he left a hint that he had when he made it clear lying to the House on that scale was a resignation matter. Then he moved on to wallpaper.

I commented yesterday that if there was actual evidence you wouldn't be producing it until after PMQs.

So perhaps it does exist...

Philip_Thompson

You watched a very different PMQs to me, I thought the PM was very impassioned and cleverly both answering the questions and moving on to addressing other issues that Labour have no answers for like housing, jobs, tax and more. 🤷‍♂️

Gallowgate

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Of course you are a pillar of objectivity yourself mate

kle4

OldBasing said:

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.

kle4

PMQ assessment is so partisan it's only worthwhile if someone who usually says Boris did well says he did poorly.

rottenborough

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
21m
Unconvincing Tory cries of “More!” Certain evidence that they know the PM is in trouble

RochdalePioneers

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

DavidL

eek said:

rottenborough said:

Has Starmer got the 'bodies' tape?

Seems he left a hint that he had when he made it clear lying to the House on that scale was a resignation matter. Then he moved on to wallpaper.

I commented yesterday that if there was actual evidence you wouldn't be producing it until after PMQs.

So perhaps it does exist...

I just don't see how there can be. Anyone who goes around surreptitiously recording conversations or rants by the PM in Downing Street is not only going to be sacked but risking an appearance in front of the beak. It would be a very serious matter.

rottenborough

Well, I watched it and I've never seen Johnson so rattled.

RochdalePioneers

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

Philip_Thompson

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

kle4

rottenborough said:

John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
21m
Unconvincing Tory cries of “More!” Certain evidence that they know the PM is in trouble

Unconvincing is in the eye of the beholder of course. Seems like the logic of when politician X is attacked by opponents, and their supporters claim it is because said opponents fear X. Which might be true, but could also mean they just think X is crap.

That is, Tory backbenchers crying 'more' could be a sign they know the PM is in trouble, but could also be a sign they wanted more.

Given the self harm from the Cummings accusations and the weird evasions from No.10 on the flat stuff I'm inclined to agree it is the former, but I'm surprised Rentoul would take his subjective interpretation of an 'unconvincing' cry as opposed to a convincing cry, as evidence of them knowing the PM is in trouble. Feels like working backwards from a conclusion and finding the pattern to support it.

Big_G_NorthWales

On the allegations about Boris's covid comments, those anonymous witnesses would have to have a recording of his words otherwise it is a he said she said situation

If it is not written( recorded) it is not said

If a recording contradicts Boris he will have to resign

londonpubman

Gallowgate said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Of course you are a pillar of objectivity yourself mate

Of course! I regard myself as broad centre social liberal moderate. I am glad you get this.

DavidL

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

CarlottaVance

rottenborough said:

Well, I watched it and I've never seen Johnson so rattled.

One person's "rattled" is another person's "impassioned".......

RochdalePioneers

Can the fanbois answer whether the law should apply to the Prime Minister? Before his rant/passionate final answer he explicitly refused to answer the question about who paid the bill.

He tried to suggest that he had paid the dollah but then said he would make whatever declarations he is advised he should make. So if he has accepted the cash and not declared it then its a black and white illegat act and a black and white breach of the established standards in public life encapsulated in the ministerial code.

If the PM is found to have illegally failed to declare this should he resign? If not, which other laws should he be free to break without comeback? And which laws should you and me be free to breach and not be pulled up for?

Scott_xP

DavidL said:

Have I missed anything material?

The Electoral Commission thinks they have grounds to investigate, so yes, probably.

CarlottaVance

Remember Bernie Ecclestone? Blair never recovered. He only won 412 seats at the next election.

https://twitter.com/ayestotheright/status/1387370538264313858?s=20

DecrepiterJohnL

OT-ish thought. It used to be said that when Conservative MPs got into money troubles, Michael Heseltine would write a cheque and the whips would own their immortal souls. I suppose that would be illegal now.

RochdalePioneers

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

The deadline has passed. "friends" rallying round an giving / loaning him money has to be declared. Why does the law not apply to the Prime Minister>?

Stuartinromford

OK, it's Westminster Bubble, and nobody watches PMQs with the calm detachment of (say) a South African watching an Ashes Test. But.

People who are totally sure of their ground and are just peeved about being asked about trivia don't normally behave like that. People who shout sweary stuff about not minding if people die when they've been not got their way in a meeting do. I'm beginning to suspect that the Prime Minister isn't a very nice man, which is odd considering his TV persona.

And if a tape, or other evidence, should turn up, and the PM has just flat-out, one word lied to Parliament, it will be an interesting test of the "nobody cares" theory. Because an awful lot of the smooth running of society depends on the understanding that, if push comes to shove, you don't tell flat-out lies. It's an example of how boring rules-based societies prosper and lawless ones don't.

Stocky

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

Why didn't he put it to Parliament that £30k is insufficient given the importance of the Grade One listed national asset? Make his case and get it through with his majority - not a one-off increase in the budget, but an sensible increase for all future PMs, perhaps with some index-linking built in.

Dura_Ace

One of my A level tutees, none of whom normally give a tin fuck about politics, mentioned the flat on discord. She thinks it's his flat

eek said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Everyone has a habit of showing their bias

This is however a very telling photo - Boris was definitely rattled

He looks like Brucie on the touchline at SJP.

Morris_Dancer

I didn't watch it.

Boris Johnson losing office due to fibbing over expenses incurred unnecessarily at the behest of a paramour would be quite fitting.

CarlottaVance

Scott_xP said:

DavidL said:

Have I missed anything material?

The Electoral Commission thinks they have grounds to investigate, so yes, probably.

You mean like they had LEAVE "bang to rights"?

kle4

MattW said:

Roger said:

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.

TOPPING

You would have to be a special kind of stupid as PM not to declare what you need to declare so I can't see Boris not having done. Surely he would have.

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 is all more likely to try to keep someone out of the news.

DecrepiterJohnL

An amusing and on-topic anecdote from veteran American journalist (the late) David Brinkley on playing poker with Winston Churchill and Harry Truman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmefhLjRfYw

contrarian

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

So why is Boris so angry and impassioned? why doesn't he stand up and say to Starmer, with all that's going on in the world, is this really the best you have got, you irrelevant nobody? A flat refurbishment? Labour leaders of the past must be turning in their graves.

The reason is that he and his government crave the approval and support of the commentariat, the soft left and the mainstream media. Its far more important than all of those votes in the red wall.

The are playing Starmer's game on Starmer's territory. And why they are entangled in this.

Philip_Thompson

RochdalePioneers said:

Can the fanbois answer whether the law should apply to the Prime Minister? Before his rant/passionate final answer he explicitly refused to answer the question about who paid the bill.

He tried to suggest that he had paid the dollah but then said he would make whatever declarations he is advised he should make. So if he has accepted the cash and not declared it then its a black and white illegat act and a black and white breach of the established standards in public life encapsulated in the ministerial code.

If the PM is found to have illegally failed to declare this should he resign? If not, which other laws should he be free to break without comeback? And which laws should you and me be free to breach and not be pulled up for?

If he's found guilty in a court of law of breaking the law then that would be very serious and I can't see how he could survive that.

If this is clerical bollocks that gets resolved and doesn't reach a court of law then IDGAF.

The law is the law yes and that is settled by the courts not partisans pretending that this or that is a breach of the law because it suits their partisan agenda and guilty unless proven innocent is all your political opponents deserve.

DavidL

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

The deadline has passed. "friends" rallying round an giving / loaning him money has to be declared. Why does the law not apply to the Prime Minister>?

Do you know the time line for this? Would there still be an obligation to record the loan/donation even if it had been repaid before the declaration was made? If it was a donation and given back is there any need to say anything?

I am not saying that there is nothing to this. I am trying to identify exactly what the issue is.

TOPPING

fpt

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Floater said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1387364777752776709

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.

CarlottaVance

FPT:

The Commission trying to blame-shift onto France/Germany/Italy/Netherlands

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/

BluestBlue

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

MikeSmithson

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

Scott_xP

Spotted! Boris Johnson currently in the members tea room trying to charm Tory MPs with his PPS at his side. And the detectives at the door

He doesn’t usually do the tea room... wonder why now....?
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387374458898366465

RochdalePioneers

Stuartinromford said:

OK, it's Westminster Bubble, and nobody watches PMQs with the calm detachment of (say) a South African watching an Ashes Test. But.

People who are totally sure of their ground and are just peeved about being asked about trivia don't normally behave like that. People who shout sweary stuff about not minding if people die when they've been not got their way in a meeting do. I'm beginning to suspect that the Prime Minister isn't a very nice man, which is odd considering his TV persona.

And if a tape, or other evidence, should turn up, and the PM has just flat-out, one word lied to Parliament, it will be an interesting test of the "nobody cares" theory. Because an awful lot of the smooth running of society depends on the understanding that, if push comes to shove, you don't tell flat-out lies. It's an example of how boring rules-based societies prosper and lawless ones don't.

Its bigger than not lying. Its about not breaking the law. Or not breaking the law with the expectation that the law doesn't apply to you.

£88k whether for redecorating the flat or whatever else doesn't matter at all in the scheme of things. The basic legal principle of the rule of law does matter. We have actual lawyers posting on this site, lawyers who support the "it doesn't matter" argument.

Does it matter that the law applies to everyone equally? If the answer is no then we are well beyond politics.

Luckyguy1983

TOPPING said:

You would have to be a special kind of stupid as PM not to declare what you need to declare so I can't see Boris not having done. Surely he would have.

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

But the distraction strategy thing is more 'classic Dom' isn't it, and Dom isn't there any more.

kle4

Scott_xP said:

DavidL said:

Have I missed anything material?

The Electoral Commission thinks they have grounds to investigate, so yes, probably.

I'd not be surprised if most investigations clear the accused, or conclude any breach is trivial.

It'll be exciting if this catches Boris out, but it may be worth preparing for an all clear. If it us, wont lots of us need to apologise?

Tres

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

The deadline has passed. "friends" rallying round an giving / loaning him money has to be declared. Why does the law not apply to the Prime Minister>?

Do you know the time line for this? Would there still be an obligation to record the loan/donation even if it had been repaid before the declaration was made? If it was a donation and given back is there any need to say anything?

I am not saying that there is nothing to this. I am trying to identify exactly what the issue is.

As someone who has had to declare these sort of things to the electoral commission, you need to include all donations above 500 quid, whether accepted or not.

tlg86

Scott_xP said:

Spotted! Boris Johnson currently in the members tea room trying to charm Tory MPs with his PPS at his side. And the detectives at the door

He doesn’t usually do the tea room... wonder why now....?
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1387374458898366465

I know for a fact that this is bollocks because I’ve read at least twice on here “Boris spotted in the tea rooms! He doesn’t normally go there!”

DavidL

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

So why is Boris so angry and impassioned? why doesn't he stand up and say to Starmer, with all that's going on in the world, is this really the best you have got, you irrelevant nobody? A flat refurbishment? Labour leaders of the past must be turning in their graves.

The reason is that he and his government crave the approval and support of the commentariat, the soft left and the mainstream media. Its far more important than all of those votes in the red wall.

The are playing Starmer's game on Starmer's territory. And why they are entangled in this.

Well, maybe we will find that these friends, who clearly want to remain anonymous, do have government contracts, possibly even contracts that went through the accelerated procedures for Covid related contracts on a non competitive tendering basis. I am not saying that there is nothing to this. But there is a hell of a lot of smoke floating about at the moment without much sign of a fire.

TOPPING

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

Seriously? Glassing someone in the face does not equate to wiping out three generations of the same family with a bread knife. So we give the former a free pass?

dixiedean

"Rattled" was the exact term R5L used.

RochdalePioneers

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

The deadline has passed. "friends" rallying round an giving / loaning him money has to be declared. Why does the law not apply to the Prime Minister>?

Do you know the time line for this? Would there still be an obligation to record the loan/donation even if it had been repaid before the declaration was made? If it was a donation and given back is there any need to say anything?

I am not saying that there is nothing to this. I am trying to identify exactly what the issue is.

Whilst I don't have specific dates, the Cabinet Office, the Conservative Party and the Electoral Commission all believe the declaration was not made in the required period.

Jonathan

Morris_Dancer said:

I didn't watch it.

Boris Johnson losing office due to fibbing over expenses incurred unnecessarily at the behest of a paramour would be quite fitting.

Quite good for the country if Boris was ejected in that way. At the moment, he sets a pretty poor standard for others to follow. A model for future leaders. Tories seemingly willing to forgive Boris anything because they like his politics might take pause if someone they agree with far less approached politics in the same way.

MattW

CarlottaVance said:

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.”

https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-was-warned-eus-astrazeneca-contract-lacked-teeth-documents/

They really should have left this alone.......

I was really surprised by the letter that UVDL and Merkel made the Health Ministers from the Inclusive Vaccine Alliance sign. It was a calculated humiliation - make them kow-tow.

RochdalePioneers

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can the fanbois answer whether the law should apply to the Prime Minister? Before his rant/passionate final answer he explicitly refused to answer the question about who paid the bill.

He tried to suggest that he had paid the dollah but then said he would make whatever declarations he is advised he should make. So if he has accepted the cash and not declared it then its a black and white illegat act and a black and white breach of the established standards in public life encapsulated in the ministerial code.

If the PM is found to have illegally failed to declare this should he resign? If not, which other laws should he be free to break without comeback? And which laws should you and me be free to breach and not be pulled up for?

If he's found guilty in a court of law of breaking the law then that would be very serious and I can't see how he could survive that.

If this is clerical bollocks that gets resolved and doesn't reach a court of law then IDGAF.

The law is the law yes and that is settled by the courts not partisans pretending that this or that is a breach of the law because it suits their partisan agenda and guilty unless proven innocent is all your political opponents deserve.

I appreciate your measured post. I'm glad that you accept the rule of law is univeral.

Would the PM really want to hold on through a trial? Whilst innocent until proven guilty is another sacred principle, it isn't usually used as a political fig leaf.

If - as his answers suggest - he didn't declare the money then he has broken the ministerial code. HIS ministerial code where he expects his ministers to follow the required standards in public office. If he didn't declare the money then he has broken the law.

When all this comes out - and if it was innocuous they would have cleared this up already - should the PM resign or not?

RochdalePioneers

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

A "silly technicality" being "the law". If one law doesn't apply then why would other laws apply?

Philip_Thompson

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

TOPPING

DavidL said:

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

So why is Boris so angry and impassioned? why doesn't he stand up and say to Starmer, with all that's going on in the world, is this really the best you have got, you irrelevant nobody? A flat refurbishment? Labour leaders of the past must be turning in their graves.

The reason is that he and his government crave the approval and support of the commentariat, the soft left and the mainstream media. Its far more important than all of those votes in the red wall.

The are playing Starmer's game on Starmer's territory. And why they are entangled in this.

Well, maybe we will find that these friends, who clearly want to remain anonymous, do have government contracts, possibly even contracts that went through the accelerated procedures for Covid related contracts on a non competitive tendering basis. I am not saying that there is nothing to this. But there is a hell of a lot of smoke floating about at the moment without much sign of a fire.

I can quite believe this except for I would be surprised if Boris actually did something wrong. Aren't there teams of people helping PMs avoid doing just that?

My $0.02 is that it is indeed to protect people but more from embarrassment than the examples you mention.

Because Boris would SURELY not be as absolutely fucking stupid as to have come within a million miles of breaking the law while PM. Would he?

BluestBlue

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

Seriously? Glassing someone in the face does not equate to wiping out three generations of the same family with a bread knife. So we give the former a free pass?

Let's see what the electorate decides. Last time, their verdict on the serious charges of Boris 'illegally proroguing Parliament' and 'lying to the Queen' was to give him the largest share of the vote in 40 years.

I would suggest that if they had the slightest interest in this sort of petty, pusillanimous bullshit about wallpaper or anything else, they wouldn't have done that.

RochdalePioneers

DavidL said:

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

So why is Boris so angry and impassioned? why doesn't he stand up and say to Starmer, with all that's going on in the world, is this really the best you have got, you irrelevant nobody? A flat refurbishment? Labour leaders of the past must be turning in their graves.

The reason is that he and his government crave the approval and support of the commentariat, the soft left and the mainstream media. Its far more important than all of those votes in the red wall.

The are playing Starmer's game on Starmer's territory. And why they are entangled in this.

Well, maybe we will find that these friends, who clearly want to remain anonymous, do have government contracts, possibly even contracts that went through the accelerated procedures for Covid related contracts on a non competitive tendering basis. I am not saying that there is nothing to this. But there is a hell of a lot of smoke floating about at the moment without much sign of a fire.

Donors above a trivial value cannot remain anonymous. As a lawyer surely you will know why this is the case.

Philip_Thompson

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can the fanbois answer whether the law should apply to the Prime Minister? Before his rant/passionate final answer he explicitly refused to answer the question about who paid the bill.

He tried to suggest that he had paid the dollah but then said he would make whatever declarations he is advised he should make. So if he has accepted the cash and not declared it then its a black and white illegat act and a black and white breach of the established standards in public life encapsulated in the ministerial code.

If the PM is found to have illegally failed to declare this should he resign? If not, which other laws should he be free to break without comeback? And which laws should you and me be free to breach and not be pulled up for?

If he's found guilty in a court of law of breaking the law then that would be very serious and I can't see how he could survive that.

If this is clerical bollocks that gets resolved and doesn't reach a court of law then IDGAF.

The law is the law yes and that is settled by the courts not partisans pretending that this or that is a breach of the law because it suits their partisan agenda and guilty unless proven innocent is all your political opponents deserve.

I appreciate your measured post. I'm glad that you accept the rule of law is univeral.

Would the PM really want to hold on through a trial? Whilst innocent until proven guilty is another sacred principle, it isn't usually used as a political fig leaf.

If - as his answers suggest - he didn't declare the money then he has broken the ministerial code. HIS ministerial code where he expects his ministers to follow the required standards in public office. If he didn't declare the money then he has broken the law.

When all this comes out - and if it was innocuous they would have cleared this up already - should the PM resign or not?

If he's found guilty of breaking the law by a court of law then yes.

Would the PM really want to hold on through a trial? Up to him, maybe, other nations leaders have done precisely that - though typically over much more serious allegations of actual corruption etc

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

Philip because just as you have belatedly seen how this govt has extended its reach and restricted our civil liberties to an extraordinary extent - restrictions that you were cheering on a matter of months ago, so now do you begin to realise that there is something rotten at the heart of "your party".

kinabalu

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can the fanbois answer whether the law should apply to the Prime Minister? Before his rant/passionate final answer he explicitly refused to answer the question about who paid the bill.

He tried to suggest that he had paid the dollah but then said he would make whatever declarations he is advised he should make. So if he has accepted the cash and not declared it then its a black and white illegat act and a black and white breach of the established standards in public life encapsulated in the ministerial code.

If the PM is found to have illegally failed to declare this should he resign? If not, which other laws should he be free to break without comeback? And which laws should you and me be free to breach and not be pulled up for?

If he's found guilty in a court of law of breaking the law then that would be very serious and I can't see how he could survive that.

If this is clerical bollocks that gets resolved and doesn't reach a court of law then IDGAF.

The law is the law yes and that is settled by the courts not partisans pretending that this or that is a breach of the law because it suits their partisan agenda and guilty unless proven innocent is all your political opponents deserve.

"Laura K is a woke BBC lefty" - lol.

You and other PB Tories are sounding as flushed, loud and sweaty as your hero.

Let's just see how this develops, shall we.

rottenborough

meanwhile...

(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
The Left really do hate Starmer more than they hate Boris...

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1387374335736918022

Luckyguy1983

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

So why is Boris so angry and impassioned? why doesn't he stand up and say to Starmer, with all that's going on in the world, is this really the best you have got, you irrelevant nobody? A flat refurbishment? Labour leaders of the past must be turning in their graves.

The reason is that he and his government crave the approval and support of the commentariat, the soft left and the mainstream media. Its far more important than all of those votes in the red wall.

The are playing Starmer's game on Starmer's territory. And why they are entangled in this.

I tend to agree. And he could have been really annoying and after giving his response on the refurb said 'so why don't you ask me something about what my Government is doing about the global pandemic, or anything else that actually affects peoples' lives?' - to which Starmer would have just had to plough on with the refurb, and looked like a proper plonker.

TOPPING

BluestBlue said:

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

Seriously? Glassing someone in the face does not equate to wiping out three generations of the same family with a bread knife. So we give the former a free pass?

Let's see what the electorate decides. Last time, their verdict on the serious charges of Boris 'illegally proroguing Parliament' and 'lying to the Queen' was to give him the largest share of the vote in 40 years.

I would suggest that if they had the slightest interest in this sort of petty, pusillanimous bullshit about wallpaper or anything else, they wouldn't have done that.

The electorate is irrelevant. You still haven't answered the question. The law is the law. If he has broken it your view is that as he has not glassed someone in the face he should get a free pass for breaking the bit of it that he did. If he did.

Is this who you have become as "BluestBlue"?

contrarian

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

So why didn't Johnson stand up and say that today? why did he get so flustered??

Because he and his team crave the approval of the mainstream media, the twitterati, the commentariat and the soft left.

RochdalePioneers

BluestBlue said:

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

Seriously? Glassing someone in the face does not equate to wiping out three generations of the same family with a bread knife. So we give the former a free pass?

Let's see what the electorate decides. Last time, their verdict on the serious charges of Boris 'illegally proroguing Parliament' and 'lying to the Queen' was to give him the largest share of the vote in 40 years.

I would suggest that if they had the slightest interest in this sort of petty, pusillanimous bullshit about wallpaper or anything else, they wouldn't have done that.

So back to my point. If "the electorate" is happy to grant the PM a pass to break the law then what other laws should he be free to break. Or you for that matter. After all, the law is just "petty, pusillanimous bullshit" after all.

Can I punch you in the face as an example? Or you punch me in the face? And present the defence once arrested that the law is a "silly technicality"?

I get that you and some others are open partisans and that is fine. Can you understand though that there are Bigger Things than the electoral success of the Tory Party? The rule of law is something that absolutely no other Tory leader ever would have treated with the disdain that the current PM and his fanbois do.

DavidL

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

So why is Boris so angry and impassioned? why doesn't he stand up and say to Starmer, with all that's going on in the world, is this really the best you have got, you irrelevant nobody? A flat refurbishment? Labour leaders of the past must be turning in their graves.

The reason is that he and his government crave the approval and support of the commentariat, the soft left and the mainstream media. Its far more important than all of those votes in the red wall.

The are playing Starmer's game on Starmer's territory. And why they are entangled in this.

Well, maybe we will find that these friends, who clearly want to remain anonymous, do have government contracts, possibly even contracts that went through the accelerated procedures for Covid related contracts on a non competitive tendering basis. I am not saying that there is nothing to this. But there is a hell of a lot of smoke floating about at the moment without much sign of a fire.

Donors above a trivial value cannot remain anonymous. As a lawyer surely you will know why this is the case.

Absolutely. And no doubt their donations, if they made any, to the Conservative party, will be declared in due course. If their donations to the State on behalf of the PM were repaid in full, however, I am not so sure that needs to be declared.

I remember "loans" were used to hide millions of what were in fact donations in Blair's time and my understanding is that after that loans had to be declared so Boris's loan from the Conservative party will need to be declared too. What is wrong here? I am not getting a straight answer from anyone.

squareroot2

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

Look back on here in a years time.....

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Can the fanbois answer whether the law should apply to the Prime Minister? Before his rant/passionate final answer he explicitly refused to answer the question about who paid the bill.

He tried to suggest that he had paid the dollah but then said he would make whatever declarations he is advised he should make. So if he has accepted the cash and not declared it then its a black and white illegat act and a black and white breach of the established standards in public life encapsulated in the ministerial code.

If the PM is found to have illegally failed to declare this should he resign? If not, which other laws should he be free to break without comeback? And which laws should you and me be free to breach and not be pulled up for?

If he's found guilty in a court of law of breaking the law then that would be very serious and I can't see how he could survive that.

If this is clerical bollocks that gets resolved and doesn't reach a court of law then IDGAF.

The law is the law yes and that is settled by the courts not partisans pretending that this or that is a breach of the law because it suits their partisan agenda and guilty unless proven innocent is all your political opponents deserve.

"Laura K is a woke BBC lefty" - lol.

You and other PB Tories are sounding as flushed, loud and sweaty as your hero.

Let's just see how this develops, shall we.

I never said woke, why would I?

What's funny about the BBC being left? Momentum calls many on the left "Tories" including Starmer, Blair, Mandelson, Jess Phillips, LauraK, anyone who doesn't kiss the ground Corbyn walks on . . .

MaxPB

Honestly, this feels desperate. No one cares about who paid for wallpaper.

DecrepiterJohnL

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

You would have to be a special kind of stupid as PM not to declare what you need to declare so I can't see Boris not having done. Surely he would have.

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

But the distraction strategy thing is more 'classic Dom' isn't it, and Dom isn't there any more.

The dead cat strategy is classic Lynton Crosby and Boris was a fan even in his Mayoral days.

Stocky

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

So why didn't Johnson stand up and say that today? why did he get so flustered.

Because he and his team crave the approval of the mainstream media, the twitterati, the commentariat and the soft left.

I don't think they "crave the approval of" - rather they are shit-scared of criticism from them. This is a frightened and defensive No 10.

TOPPING

MaxPB said:

Honestly, this feels desperate. No one cares about who paid for wallpaper.

Of course they don't. But I happen to care whether my PM broke the law.

IshmaelZ

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

So why didn't Johnson stand up and say that today? why did he get so flustered.

Because he and his team crave the approval of the mainstream media, the twitterati, the commentariat and the soft left.

Did you listen? That's pretty much exactly what he did say.

Philip_Thompson

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

So why didn't Johnson stand up and say that today? why did he get so flustered??

Because he and his team crave the approval of the mainstream media, the twitterati, the commentariat and the soft left.

He did say that. He said it repeatedly.

BluestBlue

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

Seriously? Glassing someone in the face does not equate to wiping out three generations of the same family with a bread knife. So we give the former a free pass?

Let's see what the electorate decides. Last time, their verdict on the serious charges of Boris 'illegally proroguing Parliament' and 'lying to the Queen' was to give him the largest share of the vote in 40 years.

I would suggest that if they had the slightest interest in this sort of petty, pusillanimous bullshit about wallpaper or anything else, they wouldn't have done that.

The electorate is irrelevant. You still haven't answered the question. The law is the law. If he has broken it your view is that as he has not glassed someone in the face he should get a free pass for breaking the bit of it that he did. If he did.

Is this who you have become as "BluestBlue"?

Someone who cares about substantive issues in the real world rather than irrelevant bullshit? I've been that person all my life, and am proud to remain so.

RochdalePioneers

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

So why didn't Johnson stand up and say that today? why did he get so flustered??

Because he and his team crave the approval of the mainstream media, the twitterati, the commentariat and the soft left.

If it was legal and above board then it would have been placed above board. The longer this goes on without answers the more obvious to everyone it is that it wasn't legal.

Brought down over wallpaper. You have to laugh. What a ludicrous hill to die on.

SouthamObserver

My view of PMQs - for what it's worth - is that both Starmer and Johnson did what they set out to do. Starmer sought to get the PM to issue on the record denials about both the bodies quote and the flat. Job done. Johnson wanted to get through the session without appearing weak. Which he did. If there is a smoking gun, Starmer will turn out to be the winner; if there isn't, Johnson's strategy will undoubtedly have worked.

What I don't think is sustainable is a Tory approach to all of this which essentially revolves around claiming the British people do not mind being lied to or taken for fools by their political leaders because they are more interested in other things. That is dangerous hubris.

Scott_xP

MaxPB said:

Honestly, this feels desperate. No one cares about who paid for wallpaper.

BoZo cares. It really scares him

TOPPING

BluestBlue said:

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

Seriously? Glassing someone in the face does not equate to wiping out three generations of the same family with a bread knife. So we give the former a free pass?

Let's see what the electorate decides. Last time, their verdict on the serious charges of Boris 'illegally proroguing Parliament' and 'lying to the Queen' was to give him the largest share of the vote in 40 years.

I would suggest that if they had the slightest interest in this sort of petty, pusillanimous bullshit about wallpaper or anything else, they wouldn't have done that.

The electorate is irrelevant. You still haven't answered the question. The law is the law. If he has broken it your view is that as he has not glassed someone in the face he should get a free pass for breaking the bit of it that he did. If he did.

Is this who you have become as "BluestBlue"?

Someone who cares about substantive issues in the real world rather than irrelevant bullshit? I've been that person all my life, and am proud to remain so.

Your kidding, right?

What about the rule of law. Pick 'n mix? Those you "feel" are right and should be obeyed, the rest not so much?

You, the latin scholar who could probably quote Cicero at me without a Loeb Classic to hand? A thousand years of jurisprudence (wiki)? Fuck the law? That it?

Taz

RochdalePioneers said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

So why didn't Johnson stand up and say that today? why did he get so flustered??

Because he and his team crave the approval of the mainstream media, the twitterati, the commentariat and the soft left.

If it was legal and above board then it would have been placed above board. The longer this goes on without answers the more obvious to everyone it is that it wasn't legal.

Brought down over wallpaper. You have to laugh. What a ludicrous hill to die on.

This is a good point and why it is so potentially damaging. None of the other stuff is.

Scott_xP

SouthamObserver said:

What I don't think is sustainable is a Tory approach to all of this which essentially revolves around claiming the British people do not mind being lied to or taken for fools by their political leaders because they are more interested in other things. That is dangerous hubris.

Except it works.

Cicero

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

r.
Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

When even LauraK says BJ is rattled, he really is rattled. She may be about as compromised as a supposedly objective journalist very well can be, and her pro Tory bias has been clear and obvious for a long time, so OGH is right: your comment is total bollocks. As for your doubled down bollocks, the handling of Covid by the civil service has been good, by BJ, not to so much and the whole country knows this, just as they know that he is not a particularly good PM and not a particularly good man. The economy is still a very open question, but I can tell you that upland farmers, fisherfolk and retail workers are not facing the brightest of times, so I would dial back on the triumphalism if I were you. Truth is that you are whistling in the dark. BJ looked awful and quite a lot of votes are not in the box.

RochdalePioneers

In case anyone is interested, that bastion of anti-Tory smears is leading with Liar's repeated denials as its lead story. And the highest rated comments are all deeply critical.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Philip_Thompson

RochdalePioneers said:

BluestBlue said:

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

Seriously? Glassing someone in the face does not equate to wiping out three generations of the same family with a bread knife. So we give the former a free pass?

Let's see what the electorate decides. Last time, their verdict on the serious charges of Boris 'illegally proroguing Parliament' and 'lying to the Queen' was to give him the largest share of the vote in 40 years.

I would suggest that if they had the slightest interest in this sort of petty, pusillanimous bullshit about wallpaper or anything else, they wouldn't have done that.

So back to my point. If "the electorate" is happy to grant the PM a pass to break the law then what other laws should he be free to break. Or you for that matter. After all, the law is just "petty, pusillanimous bullshit" after all.

Can I punch you in the face as an example? Or you punch me in the face? And present the defence once arrested that the law is a "silly technicality"?

I get that you and some others are open partisans and that is fine. Can you understand though that there are Bigger Things than the electoral success of the Tory Party? The rule of law is something that absolutely no other Tory leader ever would have treated with the disdain that the current PM and his fanbois do.

If you punch someone in the face then I would hope that would end up being taken to court and if found guilty in a court of law then you should face consequences for your actions.

Are you in favour of that? Or do you wish to scrap courts and due process and just have kangaroo courts were public opinion determines if people are guilty or not without such pesky things like facts, laws or evidence?

Stuartinromford

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

You would have to be a special kind of stupid as PM not to declare what you need to declare so I can't see Boris not having done. Surely he would have.

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

But the distraction strategy thing is more 'classic Dom' isn't it, and Dom isn't there any more.

The dead cat strategy is classic Lynton Crosby and Boris was a fan even in his Mayoral days.

True, and as an occasional shock thing, it has its place the armoury of "things that effective politicians do, even though they're not very nice."

The trouble comes if you come to rely on it too much, and you end up with a huge smelly pile of decomposing felines.

kle4

MaxPB said:

Honestly, this feels desperate. No one cares about who paid for wallpaper.

I do. Those in public office should hold high standards and be seen to hold high standards, and that increases with the importance of the role held.

It isnt difficult to declare things properly and it doesnt mean we need robotic angels to hold office. Just be open and transparent and dont take the piss.

This row, even if it goes nowhere, is their own damn fault.

RochdalePioneers

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

So why is Boris so angry and impassioned? why doesn't he stand up and say to Starmer, with all that's going on in the world, is this really the best you have got, you irrelevant nobody? A flat refurbishment? Labour leaders of the past must be turning in their graves.

The reason is that he and his government crave the approval and support of the commentariat, the soft left and the mainstream media. Its far more important than all of those votes in the red wall.

The are playing Starmer's game on Starmer's territory. And why they are entangled in this.

Well, maybe we will find that these friends, who clearly want to remain anonymous, do have government contracts, possibly even contracts that went through the accelerated procedures for Covid related contracts on a non competitive tendering basis. I am not saying that there is nothing to this. But there is a hell of a lot of smoke floating about at the moment without much sign of a fire.

Donors above a trivial value cannot remain anonymous. As a lawyer surely you will know why this is the case.

Absolutely. And no doubt their donations, if they made any, to the Conservative party, will be declared in due course. If their donations to the State on behalf of the PM were repaid in full, however, I am not so sure that needs to be declared.

I remember "loans" were used to hide millions of what were in fact donations in Blair's time and my understanding is that after that loans had to be declared so Boris's loan from the Conservative party will need to be declared too. What is wrong here? I am not getting a straight answer from anyone.

They *haven't* been declared in due time. Thats the whole point. Even now they haven't been declared - he said that he would make whatever declarations the enquiry requires him to make.

Philip_Thompson

RochdalePioneers said:

In case anyone is interested, that bastion of anti-Tory smears is leading with Liar's repeated denials as its lead story. And the highest rated comments are all deeply critical.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Yes the Dail Heil under Geordie Gregg have long been anti-Tory, may as well quote the Mirror.

Are you a fan of the Heil now? Do you consider it an impartial and wise oracle?

I've been against that "newspaper" all along and won't change my principles whether it backs my side or not, what about you?

RochdalePioneers

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BluestBlue said:

TOPPING said:

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

Seriously? Glassing someone in the face does not equate to wiping out three generations of the same family with a bread knife. So we give the former a free pass?

Let's see what the electorate decides. Last time, their verdict on the serious charges of Boris 'illegally proroguing Parliament' and 'lying to the Queen' was to give him the largest share of the vote in 40 years.

I would suggest that if they had the slightest interest in this sort of petty, pusillanimous bullshit about wallpaper or anything else, they wouldn't have done that.

So back to my point. If "the electorate" is happy to grant the PM a pass to break the law then what other laws should he be free to break. Or you for that matter. After all, the law is just "petty, pusillanimous bullshit" after all.

Can I punch you in the face as an example? Or you punch me in the face? And present the defence once arrested that the law is a "silly technicality"?

I get that you and some others are open partisans and that is fine. Can you understand though that there are Bigger Things than the electoral success of the Tory Party? The rule of law is something that absolutely no other Tory leader ever would have treated with the disdain that the current PM and his fanbois do.

If you punch someone in the face then I would hope that would end up being taken to court and if found guilty in a court of law then you should face consequences for your actions.

Are you in favour of that? Or do you wish to scrap courts and due process and just have kangaroo courts were public opinion determines if people are guilty or not without such pesky things like facts, laws or evidence?

Me? No. PB Tories defending the PM's right to break the law? Not sure. You have stated clearly that the law applies to the PM. Others are saying that the law is a triviality...

Philip_Thompson

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

contrarian said:

DavidL said:

So, since we are apparently supposed to take this seriously:

(1) Boris has a budget of £30k a year to do up the Downing Street flat.
(2) For reasons that seem pretty much inexplicable redecorating and refurnishing comes in nearer to £90k.
(3) Boris doesn't have that sort of cash, a point he might have thought about before he spent it, so his friends are asked to rally around, which they do.
(4) This gets awkward so friends are reimbursed and Boris pays it himself.
(5) Except that he doesn't (see (3)) but instead gets a loan from the Conservative party to whom the friends (see (4)) may or may not have made donations.

No public money is spent beyond the £30k. There is no failure to declare because the deadline for this has not yet passed. There may be an attempt to conceal what is effectively financial support from friends who may or may not be up for government contracts.

Have I missed anything material?

So why is Boris so angry and impassioned? why doesn't he stand up and say to Starmer, with all that's going on in the world, is this really the best you have got, you irrelevant nobody? A flat refurbishment? Labour leaders of the past must be turning in their graves.

The reason is that he and his government crave the approval and support of the commentariat, the soft left and the mainstream media. Its far more important than all of those votes in the red wall.

The are playing Starmer's game on Starmer's territory. And why they are entangled in this.

Well, maybe we will find that these friends, who clearly want to remain anonymous, do have government contracts, possibly even contracts that went through the accelerated procedures for Covid related contracts on a non competitive tendering basis. I am not saying that there is nothing to this. But there is a hell of a lot of smoke floating about at the moment without much sign of a fire.

Donors above a trivial value cannot remain anonymous. As a lawyer surely you will know why this is the case.

Absolutely. And no doubt their donations, if they made any, to the Conservative party, will be declared in due course. If their donations to the State on behalf of the PM were repaid in full, however, I am not so sure that needs to be declared.

I remember "loans" were used to hide millions of what were in fact donations in Blair's time and my understanding is that after that loans had to be declared so Boris's loan from the Conservative party will need to be declared too. What is wrong here? I am not getting a straight answer from anyone.

They *haven't* been declared in due time. Thats the whole point. Even now they haven't been declared - he said that he would make whatever declarations the enquiry requires him to make.

You're insisting they "haven't" with great certainty, I must have missed the court case that settled that issue. Can you point me to when this was determined please?

Taz

I do fully expect this to become a lot less prominent after next Thursday.

kinabalu

BluestBlue said:

RochdalePioneers said:

londonpubman said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

Not my assessment either and I saw it.

Keir = ineffective as usual

Boris = clearly in command, showing leadership and direction, as usual

But as ever the LAB supporters on here can keep dreaming!

Not a Labour supporter, on record as saying the Tories will benefit from replacing him.

To go back to my rule of law points - if the PM has broken the law should he resign?

If not then are you happy for someone to glass you in a pub and deflect away legal challenge because they disagree with the relevance of the law?

If you think some silly technicality equates to glassing someone in the face, then you're utterly divorced from reality and common sense. In the real world, people are capable of distinguishing between serious offences and political muck-raking over sod all.

It' isn't "silly" to have rules that mitigate against a slide into kleptocracy. Neither is this a matter of party loyalties. I can assure you that if a PM who I liked politically was facing similar questions, I would want those questions answered.

SouthamObserver

Scott_xP said:

SouthamObserver said:

What I don't think is sustainable is a Tory approach to all of this which essentially revolves around claiming the British people do not mind being lied to or taken for fools by their political leaders because they are more interested in other things. That is dangerous hubris.

Except it works.

It works now when the vaccine roll-out is successful, lockdown is easing, the furlough is shielding incomes, house prices are rising and the triple lock is doing its thing. In other words, it's a strategy for the political good times. Gambling that the good times will never end is not necessarily the wisest choice.

Taz

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

In case anyone is interested, that bastion of anti-Tory smears is leading with Liar's repeated denials as its lead story. And the highest rated comments are all deeply critical.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Yes the Dail Heil under Geordie Gregg have long been anti-Tory, may as well quote the Mirror.

Are you a fan of the Heil now? Do you consider it an impartial and wise oracle?

I've been against that "newspaper" all along and won't change my principles whether it backs my side or not, what about you?

If the Guardian can become a fan of Dubya as he opposed Trump then, of course people can suddenly support the Daily ‘Heil’ or Cummings or whoever.

My enemies enemy is my friend.

RochdalePioneers

IshmaelZ said:

contrarian said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DavidL said:

Not the assessment on the previous thread. Didn't watch.

The assessment on the previous thread was from fanbois. Labour loonies insist Kuennesberg is a Tory, and yet she has said what was self-evident.

Labour loonies insist that Labour PMs and MPs are a Tory.

LauraK is no Tory, she's a BBC lefty like the rest of them, just not so extreme left as the Momentum types would prefer.

Desperate bollocks.

What is there to be desperate over?

A week before elections my party is consistently clear in the lead in the polls and this country is so well managed that as a nation we have eliminated a global pandemic before any other major economy in the western world.

The 'desperate bollocks' is the attempt to make a story about wallpaper because opposition parties have nothing to oppose when it comes to vaccines, the pandemic, the economy or anything else.

So why didn't Johnson stand up and say that today? why did he get so flustered.

Because he and his team crave the approval of the mainstream media, the twitterati, the commentariat and the soft left.

Did you listen? That's pretty much exactly what he did say.

He didn't remotely say that he had paid the invoice, he said that he had covered it.

The Tories put a lawyer up onto the BBC. He also tried to claim the PM had fully answered the question. Until Laura K reminded him that he was a lawyer at which point he backed down and said that he didn't have any answers to that question.

Listening to you and some others is like a replay of that Thick of It episode where the minister has to ring round the press to insist that he had made an announcement that he didn't.

eek

MaxPB said:

Honestly, this feels desperate. No one cares about who paid for wallpaper.

Did the Government pay for it? If not then someone else did and did they pay for it out of the goodness of their heart or is there a quid pro quo where a favour will be called in later.

So it does matter because the question is really who paid the money and what are they hoping for from the favour.

Granted this is not Bulgaria where such things are entertainingly common (the anti-corruption director fired for buying a flat offplan for €60,000 rather than €600,000 other flats were sold for) but we do also (or at least did) have higher standards

squareroot2

Laura K uses "rattled" so five live use it.. it will rattled everywhere.. its almost as though the loathsome BBC. Is developing a meme to attack the Govt.

Impartial BBC.. risible.

RochdalePioneers

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

In case anyone is interested, that bastion of anti-Tory smears is leading with Liar's repeated denials as its lead story. And the highest rated comments are all deeply critical.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Yes the Dail Heil under Geordie Gregg have long been anti-Tory, may as well quote the Mirror.

Are you a fan of the Heil now? Do you consider it an impartial and wise oracle?

I've been against that "newspaper" all along and won't change my principles whether it backs my side or not, what about you?

The Heil is a superb newspaper - rabble rousing demeaning of women bullshit. I hate it with a passion. It is the fact that even the Hate Mail are going all guns blazing for this that is so funny.

TOPPING

SouthamObserver said:

Scott_xP said:

SouthamObserver said:

What I don't think is sustainable is a Tory approach to all of this which essentially revolves around claiming the British people do not mind being lied to or taken for fools by their political leaders because they are more interested in other things. That is dangerous hubris.

Except it works.

It works now when the vaccine roll-out is successful, lockdown is easing, the furlough is shielding incomes, house prices are rising and the triple lock is doing its thing. In other words, it's a strategy for the political good times. Gambling that the good times will never end is not necessarily the wisest choice.

The analogy (apologies because I appreciate I am in the minority here) is with lockdown.

You can't put these things back in the bottle. The willing, enthusiastic even, acceptance without demur of a raft of illiberal measures restricting hard won freedoms; and the willing acceptance of a PM or govt who is above the law.

I have to say, polemic aside, @BluestBlue's posts on this are some of the most extraordinary I've read on PB.