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.
I'm just as partisan as you and I'm always pleased when my party is doing well. However, as a separate issue I want my party leaders to obey the law, and if they didn't, I would be upset about it, even if the electorate was largely indifferent. You seem to be coming close to a Trumpian position that popularity is all that matters.
It's fine to say you don't think they have broken the law - we'll see, and none of us really know. But to imply you don't care if they have or not, so long as they're popular, takes partisanship too far.
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 . . .
Calling Laura K a Lefty is ludicrous. As ludicrous as calling Starmer a Tory. So if you were wishing to paint yourself as extreme as Momentum, well done. You've managed it.
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?
Well the list of people who believe they haven't declared it includes the PM - he said that he WILL make declarations if they are required following the investigation into whether he has yet made the due declarations. We need to follow due process, but sometimes the evidence is self-evident. He is legally innocent at the moment but increasingly politically guilty.
Unless of course he wants to clear all this up now on the record and with a flourish show how the Labour Party are duplicitous liars putting around disprovable nonsense.
If it is an error for Labour to be attacking on issues of sleaze and probity - if no one really cares - then Conservatives should be delighted that Labour are doing so, and want them to continue for as long as possible.
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.
What? I am not talking about what he said about paying invoices, nor is anyone else in this subthread. Your Thick of It reference seems to apply to you, not me.
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.
Not sure why its funny, the Heil has been going all guns blazing with rabble rousing bullshit for a long time, its nothing new it is as you say what they do. Rabble rousing bullshit is what they specialise in and you've been caught up by them hook, line and sinker.
Electoral Commission says it's been in contact w Tory party since late March. Hear Conservative Party Board been kept in dark about it all, with March meeting (ahead of May polls cancelled). "I think it could've been because of the flat" says a source. Told board last met in Jan https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1387347247067770880
Keir Starmer's spox, asked whether Boris Johnson is "a liar", replies: "Unfortunately there is a pattern of behaviour with the PM, which at the very least is not being totally straight. If not dishonest, it's a colourful misrepresentation of the truth". https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1387382228980805635
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?
Well the list of people who believe they haven't declared it includes the PM - he said that he WILL make declarations if they are required following the investigation into whether he has yet made the due declarations. We need to follow due process, but sometimes the evidence is self-evident. He is legally innocent at the moment but increasingly politically guilty.
Unless of course he wants to clear all this up now on the record and with a flourish show how the Labour Party are duplicitous liars putting around disprovable nonsense.
If he asks for advice and the advice says that says that there is something to declare and he declares it then due process has been followed.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
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?
I'm afraid so - the law, like all human contrivances, is a flawed device which benefits enormously from the application of common sense. It has also been used selectively as a political weapon more times than we could count.
Cicero, by the way, had a commendably flexible attitude to the law. Every schoolchild knows his salus populi suprema lex esto and silent enim leges inter arma. His decision to summarily execute members of the Catilinarian conspiracy without a trial was also a, ah, controversial decision at the time...
Boris Johnson did a fantastic tribute act at PMQs to Jack Nicholson performance in A Few Good Men.
The issue is, as I understand it, donors were encouraged to help pay for the refurb, however the loan to Boris Johnson from CCHQ was done retrospectively. Who was it invoiced to and who paid the actual bill(s), and are they gifts for Downing Street or chattels that Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds can take when they eventually leave Downing Street?
The issue is the donors paid for the refurb directly then he's in a world of pain, that the Electoral Commission has become involved means this is messy for him.
If the loan was at the time of invoicing/payment or was it retrospective? Number 10 can clear this up quite easily, the fact they haven't means we can infer a lot.
Boris Johnson did a fantastic tribute act at PMQs to Jack Nicholson performance in A Few Good Men.
The issue is, as I understand it, donors were encouraged to help pay for the refurb, however the loan to Boris Johnson from CCHQ was done retrospectively. Who was it invoiced to and who paid the actual bill(s), and are they gifts for Downing Street or chattels that Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds can take when they eventually leave Downing Street?
The issue is the donors paid for the refurb directly then he's in a world of pain, that the Electoral Commission has become involved means this is messy for him.
If the loan was at the time of invoicing/payment or was it retrospective? Number 10 can clear this up quite easily, the fact they haven't means we can infer a lot.
Then there's the declarations issue....
Ah but @BluestBlue reckons that 'common sense' dictates that none of that stuff matters one bit.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
Its an educated gamble, like Brexit.
If you want the union to survive you need to make a positive case to make the Scots want to stay in the UK, something Remainers abjectly failed to do with Europe. If the union is worth saving that should be easily possible, if it can't be done then so be it time to move on.
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?
This is precisely what Johnson apologists want. They argue that if the public don't care about Johnson being corrupt - as indicated by voting for him - it doesn't matter that Johnson is corrupt.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
Remember the other issue is that if the loan isn't repaid within in 6 or 9 months of the Tory Party's annual accounts end then Boris Johnson is liable to pay I think 45% tax on it to HMRC.
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?
This is precisely what Johnson apologists want. They argue that if the public don't care about Johnson being corrupt - as indicated by voting for him - it doesn't matter that Johnson is corrupt.
Boris Johnson did a fantastic tribute act at PMQs to Jack Nicholson performance in A Few Good Men.
The issue is, as I understand it, donors were encouraged to help pay for the refurb, however the loan to Boris Johnson from CCHQ was done retrospectively. Who was it invoiced to and who paid the actual bill(s), and are they gifts for Downing Street or chattels that Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds can take when they eventually leave Downing Street?
The issue is the donors paid for the refurb directly then he's in a world of pain, that the Electoral Commission has become involved means this is messy for him.
If the loan was at the time of invoicing/payment or was it retrospective? Number 10 can clear this up quite easily, the fact they haven't means we can infer a lot.
Then there's the declarations issue....
Ah but @BluestBlue reckons that 'common sense' dictates that none of that stuff matters one bit.
See my post at 1.30pm, it also is a major tax issue.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
You only have to look at MalcolmG and his pension to see the level of thought that most people in favour of independence have actual given.
Sadly I suspect he is more intelligent than most independence voters who won't see the issues until its too late.
On the upside it does seem that Boris may not be the person leading the Better Together 2 argument.
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.
Laura Kuensberg has been the most pro-government BBC political editor I can remember over many decades. Even Robin Oakley, who was a former Tory aide I seem to remember, was more probing in the late Major years.
The BBC's coverage of the Cameron and Johnson story at the top of the programme on Today this morning , with a two-way between Sarah Vine and Blair's former adviser, was also very poor and meek. The ex-Blair adviser was on to say that we treat ex-Prime Ministers too harshly ; in between Robinson cooing over the quality of Sarah Vine's column in the Daily Mail . Vine's contribution was that everything was fine with Johnson's refurbishment too, and "prime ministers can hardly live in a skip". Hardly vengeful and biased, or even particularly thorough, probing, and effective broadcasting.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
There is quite a contrast between the views of Yes & No supporters:
I agree there should be a positive case made for the Union - but "Project Reality" may be a powerful motivator for the "No" (or should that be "Remain"?) vote.
Boris Johnson did a fantastic tribute act at PMQs to Jack Nicholson performance in A Few Good Men.
The issue is, as I understand it, donors were encouraged to help pay for the refurb, however the loan to Boris Johnson from CCHQ was done retrospectively. Who was it invoiced to and who paid the actual bill(s), and are they gifts for Downing Street or chattels that Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds can take when they eventually leave Downing Street?
The issue is the donors paid for the refurb directly then he's in a world of pain, that the Electoral Commission has become involved means this is messy for him.
If the loan was at the time of invoicing/payment or was it retrospective? Number 10 can clear this up quite easily, the fact they haven't means we can infer a lot.
Then there's the declarations issue....
There is also the issue of. PM's girlfriend wants flat done up. PM can't afford it. Does it anyway. Why? Because he can't say no, 30k to do up a flat is plenty. Doesn't fill me with confidence for fiscal responsibility in any area of government.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
Its an educated gamble, like Brexit.
If you want the union to survive you need to make a positive case to make the Scots want to stay in the UK, something Remainers abjectly failed to do with Europe. If the union is worth saving that should be easily possible, if it can't be done then so be it time to move on.
They feel disrespected, underappreciated and patronised by England - that's why they want independence.
It's emotional, psychological.
The only way they'll stay is if a better story of Scotland and its future can be told inside the United Kingdom.
Remember the other issue is that if the loan isn't repaid within in 6 or 9 months of the Tory Party's annual accounts end then Boris Johnson is liable to pay I think 45% tax on it to HMRC.
A loan from a bank would have been easier. He is basically guaranteed to be rolling in it after he finishes at No 10.
Remember the other issue is that if the loan isn't repaid within in 6 or 9 months of the Tory Party's annual accounts end then Boris Johnson is liable to pay I think 45% tax on it to HMRC.
Don't think that is right. That is the case when a director has received a loan or advance from his company rather than dividends or taxable income but that would not apply to Boris or the Conservative party. The specific provisions for directors apart you don't pay IT on loans.
Also the Conservative Party is a voluntary organisation and a charitable foundation on the side.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
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?
Even I can quote Marcus Tullius: inter arma enim silent leges. Or does a coronavirus outbreak consist of enough of a war?
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.
Also the Conservative Party is a voluntary organisation and a charitable foundation on the side.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
The whole thing sounds like a complete mess. Why bother going through all this rigmarole?
Remember the other issue is that if the loan isn't repaid within in 6 or 9 months of the Tory Party's annual accounts end then Boris Johnson is liable to pay I think 45% tax on it to HMRC.
Depends on how it's been set up - i.e. whether the loan needs to be repaid and what rate of interest is being charged on the loan...
Were the loan to be forgiven than appropriate tax would need to be paid as if it was income but not if it's going to be repaid.
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.
Is there a better word for rattled than rattled?
Passionate was a better word.
But Starmer wouldn't know passion if it bit him on his penis.
In my opinion Keir Starmer failed to land a proper blow in that PMQs. His attack too forensic and lofty. Labour should have talked about the Nolan principles less and £800 wallpaper more. Boris was the one who got his MPs roaring with delight, not Keir #PMQs
Remember the other issue is that if the loan isn't repaid within in 6 or 9 months of the Tory Party's annual accounts end then Boris Johnson is liable to pay I think 45% tax on it to HMRC.
A loan from a bank would have been easier. He is basically guaranteed to be rolling in it after he finishes at No 10.
Indeed. The man clearly doesn't have the first idea of how finances work. And can't be arsed taking the trouble to investigate even briefly.
Remember the other issue is that if the loan isn't repaid within in 6 or 9 months of the Tory Party's annual accounts end then Boris Johnson is liable to pay I think 45% tax on it to HMRC.
Don't think that is right. That is the case when a director has received a loan or advance from his company rather than dividends or taxable income but that would not apply to Boris or the Conservative party. The specific provisions for directors apart you don't pay IT on loans.
I think the rules are slightly different for political parties because they aren't limited companies.
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.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
Its an educated gamble, like Brexit.
If you want the union to survive you need to make a positive case to make the Scots want to stay in the UK, something Remainers abjectly failed to do with Europe. If the union is worth saving that should be easily possible, if it can't be done then so be it time to move on.
48% still voted Remain because of the economic risks of Brexit and there is far less emotional attachment to the EU than there is to the UK.
55% voted to stay in the UK in 2014 in a campaign mainly focused on the risks of Scexit from the No side
LOL at the array for far-left people here trying to deny that the BBC's LauraK is left wing, just because she's not Momentum style far left.
It's all to do with perception. LauraK is more right wing than me and I'm a middle of the road liberal (or at least think I am).
And there's the issue your viewpoint of where someone is on the political spectrum is very much based on where you yourself are starting from but remember your personal opinion of where you yourself are on the spectrum may be completely wrong.
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?
I'm afraid so - the law, like all human contrivances, is a flawed device which benefits enormously from the application of common sense. It has also been used selectively as a political weapon more times than we could count.
Cicero, by the way, had a commendably flexible attitude to the law. Every schoolchild knows his salus populi suprema lex esto and silent enim leges inter arma. His decision to summarily execute members of the Catilinarian conspiracy without a trial was also a, ah, controversial decision at the time...
Well yes I realised that he wasn't necessarily an example to prove the point about the law. But he was eventually executed on account of it so the law did win in the end, even if Catiline thoroughly deserved it as I think most people can also agree.
However, back to the glassing of people and the failing to declare gifts if indeed that is what Boris did. These are laws that at present exist and hence you would think that short of changing them (their prerogative) they should be followed. They might be used politically but this is analogous to the expenses scandal. They are being applied across the board. And I'm also not 100% sure the Cons party would endorse your view of the law either.
All speaking of which, I yesterday bought Jonathan Sumption's book which I have just started and is already excellent.
Also the Conservative Party is a voluntary organisation and a charitable foundation on the side.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
The whole thing sounds like a complete mess. Why bother going through all this rigmarole?
It feels like it was done in a rush when the original idea for the donors to/did pay was realised to be a terrible idea.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
That is wrong, 51% of Scots oppose independence on the poll excluding don't knows and only 44% of Scots back independence including don't knows, even less than the 45% who voted Yes in 2014 before Brexit https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1387320496685998080?s=20
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?
Well the list of people who believe they haven't declared it includes the PM - he said that he WILL make declarations if they are required following the investigation into whether he has yet made the due declarations. We need to follow due process, but sometimes the evidence is self-evident. He is legally innocent at the moment but increasingly politically guilty.
Unless of course he wants to clear all this up now on the record and with a flourish show how the Labour Party are duplicitous liars putting around disprovable nonsense.
If he asks for advice and the advice says that says that there is something to declare and he declares it then due process has been followed.
No, because it hasn't been declared in the period required. Due process would have been to declare the loan / gift in the first place as required.
Remember the other issue is that if the loan isn't repaid within in 6 or 9 months of the Tory Party's annual accounts end then Boris Johnson is liable to pay I think 45% tax on it to HMRC.
Don't think that is right. That is the case when a director has received a loan or advance from his company rather than dividends or taxable income but that would not apply to Boris or the Conservative party. The specific provisions for directors apart you don't pay IT on loans.
I think the rules are slightly different for political parties because they aren't limited companies.
Yes, the company provisions would not apply. If the Conservative party lends someone money it is entitled to be paid back. The recipient does not pay IT on a loan. Or even on a gift, if it is written off in due course. A PM would always have to make the appropriate declarations though.
Also the Conservative Party is a voluntary organisation and a charitable foundation on the side.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
I don't think Boris is an employee of the Conservative Party. I would be very surprised if he was.
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.
Is there a better word for rattled than rattled?
Evasive?
Perhaps PB Tories will be able to explain who initially paid for the soft furnishings. Because Johnson sure as sh1t wouldn't.
Also the Conservative Party is a voluntary organisation and a charitable foundation on the side.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
The whole thing sounds like a complete mess. Why bother going through all this rigmarole?
It’s an absolute shambles. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it it is just a complete mess and a needless self inflicted wound too
Also the Conservative Party is a voluntary organisation and a charitable foundation on the side.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
I don't think Boris is an employee of the Conservative Party. I would be very surprised if he was.
He isn't, he is an employee of the British state as UK PM and his constituents in Uxbridge as an MP.
He is merely elected using the Conservative label and will only stay leader of it while he remains electable
Also the Conservative Party is a voluntary organisation and a charitable foundation on the side.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
I don't think Boris is an employee of the Conservative Party. I would be very surprised if he was.
He's the leader, whilst he doesn't get paid, he does get some benefits which need to be declared, they have their own P11D for the benefits they enjoy as leader.
1) I am a Tory activist. Pretty committed one too.
2) I don't think Laura K is left wing - I'm not sure I know her politics at all. Which is quite a good thing in a BBC journo I reckon.
3) I'm pretty concerned about the political ramifications of these revelations. For me the biggest political impact will come from one or both of a) the suggestion that JL furnishings are a nightmare and b) that they seem to have spent big bucks on something which wasn't necessarily within their budget
4) Whilst it clearly does matter, legally, who paid for what, when and where, I suspect it won't be this that cuts through. I'm disappointed in activists who think it doesn't actually matter. We should hold our elected officials to account.
5) I've never really thought Boris would be leader at the next election. This may hasten his departure in my mind.
6) I still think we'll do rather well next Thursday.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
There is quite a contrast between the views of Yes & No supporters:
I agree there should be a positive case made for the Union - but "Project Reality" may be a powerful motivator for the "No" (or should that be "Remain"?) vote.
The only one of those where Nats might be right is rejoining the EU, but of course that in itself would make some of the other issues, like the border, even more likely to pose a problem. The idea that you can leave the UK, have no border, use the £, use the English NHS, have no budget deficit, and negotiate all that independence entails quickly is laughable.
1) I am a Tory activist. Pretty committed one too.
2) I don't think Laura K is left wing - I'm not sure I know her politics at all. Which is quite a good thing in a BBC journo I reckon.
3) I'm pretty concerned about the political ramifications of these revelations. For me the biggest political impact will come from one or both of a) the suggestion that JL furnishings are a nightmare and b) that they seem to have spent big bucks on something which wasn't necessarily within their budget
4) Whilst it clearly does matter, legally, who paid for what, when and where, I suspect it won't be this that cuts through. I'm disappointed in activists who think it doesn't actually matter. We should hold our elected officials to account.
5) I've never really thought Boris would be leader at the next election. This may hasten his departure in my mind.
6) I still think we'll do rather well next Thursday.
Are you happy your subs and fundraising activities have been used to give Boris Johnson a loan?
The man who declared a £250,000 salary was chickenfeed?
1) I am a Tory activist. Pretty committed one too.
2) I don't think Laura K is left wing - I'm not sure I know her politics at all. Which is quite a good thing in a BBC journo I reckon.
3) I'm pretty concerned about the political ramifications of these revelations. For me the biggest political impact will come from one or both of a) the suggestion that JL furnishings are a nightmare and b) that they seem to have spent big bucks on something which wasn't necessarily within their budget
4) Whilst it clearly does matter, legally, who paid for what, when and where, I suspect it won't be this that cuts through. I'm disappointed in activists who think it doesn't actually matter. We should hold our elected officials to account.
5) I've never really thought Boris would be leader at the next election. This may hasten his departure in my mind.
6) I still think we'll do rather well next Thursday.
We will need to do extremely well to hold all our county council seats though given we had an 11% lead nationally when they were last up in 2017
Worst PMQs ? I thought Johnson had a belter. Though he did avoid answering the question.
What seems like has happened is that Boris got someone to donate to renovate the flat. This rumour has been swirling about for a while. With many party members not particularly happy about their party subscriptions been used in this way.
Something happened either it all leaked out or someone pointed out that this was not compliant with party donations so Boris has put his hand in his pocket and ended up paying for it himself.
1) I am a Tory activist. Pretty committed one too.
2) I don't think Laura K is left wing - I'm not sure I know her politics at all. Which is quite a good thing in a BBC journo I reckon.
3) I'm pretty concerned about the political ramifications of these revelations. For me the biggest political impact will come from one or both of a) the suggestion that JL furnishings are a nightmare and b) that they seem to have spent big bucks on something which wasn't necessarily within their budget
4) Whilst it clearly does matter, legally, who paid for what, when and where, I suspect it won't be this that cuts through. I'm disappointed in activists who think it doesn't actually matter. We should hold our elected officials to account.
5) I've never really thought Boris would be leader at the next election. This may hasten his departure in my mind.
6) I still think we'll do rather well next Thursday.
Are you happy your subs and fundraising activities have been used to give Boris Johnson a loan?
The man who declared a £250,000 salary was chickenfeed?
Also the Conservative Party is a voluntary organisation and a charitable foundation on the side.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
I don't think Boris is an employee of the Conservative Party. I would be very surprised if he was.
In which case is the Conservative Party licensed to give loans to none employees?
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.
Also, there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth...
Or, to put it another way: when even your normal opponents agree with you that someone, nominally, on the opponent's team has done something that stinks, then that's a big thing. You're clearly biased against your opponent, they are not, so you trumpet their view because why would they say that if it wasn't true?* Dubya wasn't anti-GOP, but he knew Trump stank. The Mail is hardly anti-Tory, but they say Johnson stinks.
*There are of course a multitude of other reasons, including personal grudges.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
I think Raab is underestimated as the 'PM falls under a bus candidate'.
Honestly the nicest politician I have ever met. I don't think his warmth comes across on screen, but person to person, amongst colleagues, I can see it working.
PMQs raised another legal point in my opinion. Virtually all the Conservative questioners talked about local and mayoral elections in their area. Some mentioned candidates by name: others asked the voters to vote for them. Should these interventions count as publicity under local expenses rules?
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
There is quite a contrast between the views of Yes & No supporters:
I agree there should be a positive case made for the Union - but "Project Reality" may be a powerful motivator for the "No" (or should that be "Remain"?) vote.
The only one of those where Nats might be right is rejoining the EU, but of course that in itself would make some of the other issues, like the border, even more likely to pose a problem. The idea that you can leave the UK, have no border, use the £, use the English NHS, have no budget deficit, and negotiate all that independence entails quickly is laughable.
They didn't test - but it's fondly believed that The UK will pay your pension....
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
1) I am a Tory activist. Pretty committed one too.
2) I don't think Laura K is left wing - I'm not sure I know her politics at all. Which is quite a good thing in a BBC journo I reckon.
3) I'm pretty concerned about the political ramifications of these revelations. For me the biggest political impact will come from one or both of a) the suggestion that JL furnishings are a nightmare and b) that they seem to have spent big bucks on something which wasn't necessarily within their budget
4) Whilst it clearly does matter, legally, who paid for what, when and where, I suspect it won't be this that cuts through. I'm disappointed in activists who think it doesn't actually matter. We should hold our elected officials to account.
5) I've never really thought Boris would be leader at the next election. This may hasten his departure in my mind.
6) I still think we'll do rather well next Thursday.
Are you happy your subs and fundraising activities have been used to give Boris Johnson a loan?
The man who declared a £250,000 salary was chickenfeed?
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
I think Raab is underestimated as the 'PM falls under a bus candidate'.
Honestly the nicest politician I have ever met. I don't think his warmth comes across on screen, but person to person, amongst colleagues, I can see it working.
Yes, Raab v Sunak would be the likeliest final 2 with Raab the candidate of the right (though Gove might also fancy his chances there) and Sunak picking up much of the Hunt vote from 2019 and the Boris vote splitting between them, but I doubt Boris is going anywhere unless his poll ratings collapse over the next few weeks and the Tories lose large numbers of council seats next week and get slaughtered in London and Scotland and lose the WM Mayoralty and fail to win Hartlepool
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Ironically, if that was the case it might help him amongst the only constituency that matters for that election. The Tory parliamentary party and membership....
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
I think Raab is underestimated as the 'PM falls under a bus candidate'.
Honestly the nicest politician I have ever met. I don't think his warmth comes across on screen, but person to person, amongst colleagues, I can see it working.
Raab will have JohnO working for him, so Raab will do well, plus he handled himself well when the PM was in hospital.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
There is quite a contrast between the views of Yes & No supporters:
I agree there should be a positive case made for the Union - but "Project Reality" may be a powerful motivator for the "No" (or should that be "Remain"?) vote.
The only one of those where Nats might be right is rejoining the EU
"Leave/Yes" supporters believe it will be quicker to join the EU (56%) than leave the UK (43%)......
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
I think Raab is underestimated as the 'PM falls under a bus candidate'.
Honestly the nicest politician I have ever met. I don't think his warmth comes across on screen, but person to person, amongst colleagues, I can see it working.
Raab would be a good choice, although I do think Hunt would be even better, Matt Hancock deserves a shot at the job as well.
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
There is quite a contrast between the views of Yes & No supporters:
I agree there should be a positive case made for the Union - but "Project Reality" may be a powerful motivator for the "No" (or should that be "Remain"?) vote.
The only one of those where Nats might be right is rejoining the EU
"Leave/Yes" supporters believe it will be quicker to join the EU (56%) than leave the UK (43%)......
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Ironically, if that was the case it might help him amongst the only constituency that matters for that election. The Tory parliamentary party and membership....
Yes but the media pressure might not work for him.
Outsider for the leadership if Johnson goes in the next few months, Matt Hancock. Don't laugh, can sell the NHS didn't collapse like India, and the vaccine rollout.
I'm not sure this will change anyone's mind. Wonder what it will do for marginal turnout?
The press love the chance to cry 'sleaze'. I think that the electorate is less engaged by these sorts of stories, but they certainly do pay some attention.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
It's an increasingly unfashionable view nowadays, but I'm of the view that money is actually quite a useful thing to have. It can be exchanged for goods and services, including the means to prevent deaths. So not necessarily an unambiguously terrible position to have held.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Ironically, if that was the case it might help him amongst the only constituency that matters for that election. The Tory parliamentary party and membership....
Yes but the media pressure might not work for him.
Outsider for the leadership if Johnson goes in the next few months, Matt Hancock. Don't laugh, can sell the NHS didn't collapse like India, and the vaccine rollout.
Ditto Nadhim Zahawi on the latter front.
In the battle between the MHs, I honestly think Mark Harper has more chance than Matt Hancock.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Cui bono? Seeing as we are quoting M. T. Cicero today.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
I think Raab is underestimated as the 'PM falls under a bus candidate'.
Honestly the nicest politician I have ever met. I don't think his warmth comes across on screen, but person to person, amongst colleagues, I can see it working.
Raab would be a good choice, although I do think Hunt would be even better, Matt Hancock deserves a shot at the job as well.
Hunt wouldn't get it because he wouldn't score particularly well in the Red Wall parts. I'd agree Raab is underestimated. Hancock has definitely upped his chances but I don't think by enough.
Worst PMQs ? I thought Johnson had a belter. Though he did avoid answering the question.
What seems like has happened is that Boris got someone to donate to renovate the flat. This rumour has been swirling about for a while. With many party members not particularly happy about their party subscriptions been used in this way.
Something happened either it all leaked out or someone pointed out that this was not compliant with party donations so Boris has put his hand in his pocket and ended up paying for it himself.
If that is the big story....
If that was the big story then it wouldn't be the big story. It isn't the big story...
FPT - @CarlottaVance that's why Project Fear won't work in stopping a second IndyRef, IMHO, because that Ashcroft polling shows Scots are fully aware of the risks and downsides, but they still want independence.
There is quite a contrast between the views of Yes & No supporters:
I agree there should be a positive case made for the Union - but "Project Reality" may be a powerful motivator for the "No" (or should that be "Remain"?) vote.
The only one of those where Nats might be right is rejoining the EU, but of course that in itself would make some of the other issues, like the border, even more likely to pose a problem. The idea that you can leave the UK, have no border, use the £, use the English NHS, have no budget deficit, and negotiate all that independence entails quickly is laughable.
They didn't test - but it's fondly believed that The UK will pay your pension....
They seem to think that leaving the UK means keeping all the benefits, but doing all the governing for themselves. Even Kippers weren't that deluded about leaving the EU.
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?
This is precisely what Johnson apologists want. They argue that if the public don't care about Johnson being corrupt - as indicated by voting for him - it doesn't matter that Johnson is corrupt.
Or it means they don't think he's corrupt. 🙄
Think he is but don't care. Or don't know and don't care. And, yes, some might even think he isn't. People can be weird. But the point is, they deliver their "verdict" at the polls and if Johnson wins he's "acquitted" and rightly so - no appeal. This is the sentiment I mean and would counsel strongly against succumbing to. It's the road to ruin.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Cui bono? Seeing as we are quoting M. T. Cicero today.
Cummings is Michael Gove's man-cum-consigliere, he's going to take out Johnson and Sunak and pave the way for Gove, or at least try to.
I did like this quote about Cummings, the man who brings nuclear weapons to a pillow fight.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
I think Raab is underestimated as the 'PM falls under a bus candidate'.
Honestly the nicest politician I have ever met. I don't think his warmth comes across on screen, but person to person, amongst colleagues, I can see it working.
Raab would be a good choice, although I do think Hunt would be even better, Matt Hancock deserves a shot at the job as well.
I can't speak to what these individuals are like one-to-one. All may be likable when you get up close. But charismatic they are not, and leaders they are not.
In a sense, it's unfair that these things matter, but they do. I just cannot see any of them as strong contenders if Johnson falls under a John Lewis van.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Cui bono? Seeing as we are quoting M. T. Cicero today.
Cummings is Michael Gove's man-cum-consigliere, he's going to take out Johnson and Sunak and pave the way for Gove, or at least try to.
I did like this quote about Cummings, the man who brings nuclear weapons to a pillow fight.
There is as much chance as Gove becoming next leader as me voting for Kamala Harris.
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?
Well the list of people who believe they haven't declared it includes the PM - he said that he WILL make declarations if they are required following the investigation into whether he has yet made the due declarations. We need to follow due process, but sometimes the evidence is self-evident. He is legally innocent at the moment but increasingly politically guilty.
Unless of course he wants to clear all this up now on the record and with a flourish show how the Labour Party are duplicitous liars putting around disprovable nonsense.
If he asks for advice and the advice says that says that there is something to declare and he declares it then due process has been followed.
No, because it hasn't been declared in the period required. Due process would have been to declare the loan / gift in the first place as required.
If a court of law determines that then you're right.
Worst PMQs ? I thought Johnson had a belter. Though he did avoid answering the question.
What seems like has happened is that Boris got someone to donate to renovate the flat. This rumour has been swirling about for a while. With many party members not particularly happy about their party subscriptions been used in this way.
Something happened either it all leaked out or someone pointed out that this was not compliant with party donations so Boris has put his hand in his pocket and ended up paying for it himself.
If that is the big story....
I don’t think any PM who so obviously refused to answer a simple question so many times comes out of the episode well.
The most telling point was the silence that fell over the house when Starmer read out the list of Nolan principles.
In my long experience as a councillor, when the chamber fell quiet was always when the person speaking was making a particularly telling point. If you were in there, you could feel it.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Cui bono? Seeing as we are quoting M. T. Cicero today.
Cummings is Michael Gove's man-cum-consigliere, he's going to take out Johnson and Sunak and pave the way for Gove, or at least try to.
I did like this quote about Cummings, the man who brings nuclear weapons to a pillow fight.
There is as much chance as Gove becoming next leader as me voting for Kamala Harris.
I know, but he's going to have an impact, Gove didn't win in 2016 but he effectively knocked out the favourite.
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!
It certainly did not sound as if he was in control, exactly the opposite, ranting and raving like a lunatic and evading answering the questions. Pretty obvious he was lying.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
I think Raab is underestimated as the 'PM falls under a bus candidate'.
Honestly the nicest politician I have ever met. I don't think his warmth comes across on screen, but person to person, amongst colleagues, I can see it working.
Raab would be a good choice, although I do think Hunt would be even better, Matt Hancock deserves a shot at the job as well.
Hunt wouldn't get it because he wouldn't score particularly well in the Red Wall parts. I'd agree Raab is underestimated. Hancock has definitely upped his chances but I don't think by enough.
Trouble for Raab is Esher & Walton now not safe, big Lib remain vote.
Liz Truss is the dark horse. Done a great job on trade. Proper quite dry conservative. Not tainted by any of the covid stuff. Sound on wokery. Doesn't secretly crave Islington voters. Third female Tory PM.
Worst PMQs ? I thought Johnson had a belter. Though he did avoid answering the question.
What seems like has happened is that Boris got someone to donate to renovate the flat. This rumour has been swirling about for a while. With many party members not particularly happy about their party subscriptions been used in this way.
Something happened either it all leaked out or someone pointed out that this was not compliant with party donations so Boris has put his hand in his pocket and ended up paying for it himself.
If that is the big story....
I don’t think any PM who so obviously refused to answer a simple question so many times comes out of the episode well.
The most telling point was the silence that fell over the house when Starmer read out the list of Nolan principles.
In my long experience as a councillor, when the chamber fell quiet was always when the person speaking was making a particularly telling point. If you were in there, you could feel it.
That's quite easy these days given how empty the place is.
This is my biggest issue with the Boris premiership. Desperate to please whoever is giving him a hard time over something no matter the cost, Carrie demanding the flat be given the decor of a mid-priced indian restaurant a trivial example but an example of his spaffing tendencies nonetheless. I don't think people will care though, financial responsibility is very early 2010s.
Question: suppose the imbecile goes in the next few months. Is it a walk in the park for Sunak? Will Hunt or Truss be his principal opponent?
The other thing I'm expecting to leak is unambiguous proof that Sunak objected to the second and third lockdowns as it would damage the economy, and delayed the second and third lockdowns.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
It's an increasingly unfashionable view nowadays, but I'm of the view that money is actually quite a useful thing to have. It can be exchanged for goods and services, including the means to prevent deaths. So not necessarily an unambiguously terrible position to have held.
The spin I've seen is that isn't an ignoble position to hold however for a government, that said it was following the science it ignored the science for far too long so not only did we get huge damage to the economy the bodies did indeed pile hire, and Sunak's fingers are all over that.
PMQs raised another legal point in my opinion. Virtually all the Conservative questioners talked about local and mayoral elections in their area. Some mentioned candidates by name: others asked the voters to vote for them. Should these interventions count as publicity under local expenses rules?
Doubtful - Commons comments are immune from those rules.
Comments
It's fine to say you don't think they have broken the law - we'll see, and none of us really know. But to imply you don't care if they have or not, so long as they're popular, takes partisanship too far.
Unless of course he wants to clear all this up now on the record and with a flourish show how the Labour Party are duplicitous liars putting around disprovable nonsense.
I don't think this is the case.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1387377086306799623
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1387382228980805635
Cicero, by the way, had a commendably flexible attitude to the law. Every schoolchild knows his salus populi suprema lex esto and silent enim leges inter arma. His decision to summarily execute members of the Catilinarian conspiracy without a trial was also a, ah, controversial decision at the time...
The issue is, as I understand it, donors were encouraged to help pay for the refurb, however the loan to Boris Johnson from CCHQ was done retrospectively. Who was it invoiced to and who paid the actual bill(s), and are they gifts for Downing Street or chattels that Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds can take when they eventually leave Downing Street?
The issue is the donors paid for the refurb directly then he's in a world of pain, that the Electoral Commission has become involved means this is messy for him.
If the loan was at the time of invoicing/payment or was it retrospective? Number 10 can clear this up quite easily, the fact they haven't means we can infer a lot.
Then there's the declarations issue....
If you want the union to survive you need to make a positive case to make the Scots want to stay in the UK, something Remainers abjectly failed to do with Europe. If the union is worth saving that should be easily possible, if it can't be done then so be it time to move on.
Sadly I suspect he is more intelligent than most independence voters who won't see the issues until its too late.
On the upside it does seem that Boris may not be the person leading the Better Together 2 argument.
The BBC's coverage of the Cameron and Johnson story at the top of the programme on Today this morning , with a two-way between Sarah Vine and Blair's former adviser, was also very poor and meek. The ex-Blair adviser was on to say that we treat ex-Prime Ministers too harshly ; in between Robinson cooing over the quality of Sarah Vine's column in the Daily Mail . Vine's contribution was that everything was fine with Johnson's refurbishment too, and "prime ministers can hardly live in a skip". Hardly vengeful and biased, or even particularly thorough, probing, and effective broadcasting.
I agree there should be a positive case made for the Union - but "Project Reality" may be a powerful motivator for the "No" (or should that be "Remain"?) vote.
Why? Because he can't say no, 30k to do up a flat is plenty.
Doesn't fill me with confidence for fiscal responsibility in any area of government.
It's emotional, psychological.
The only way they'll stay is if a better story of Scotland and its future can be told inside the United Kingdom.
There's also going to be the issue about money being used as loans to employees, the entire board of the Tory party needed to know about it and approve it.
It's not a limited company where you can overdrawn director loan accounts which can be treated as dividends, it needs repaying back with a repayment schedule/timeline for repayment.
Were the loan to be forgiven than appropriate tax would need to be paid as if it was income but not if it's going to be repaid.
But Starmer wouldn't know passion if it bit him on his penis.
In my opinion Keir Starmer failed to land a proper blow in that PMQs. His attack too forensic and lofty. Labour should have talked about the Nolan principles less and £800 wallpaper more. Boris was the one who got his MPs roaring with delight, not Keir #PMQs
https://twitter.com/kateferguson4/status/1387369340597686273?s=20
The other tricky thing for Labour is the amounts of public money Blair spent......
The man clearly doesn't have the first idea of how finances work.
And can't be arsed taking the trouble to investigate even briefly.
55% voted to stay in the UK in 2014 in a campaign mainly focused on the risks of Scexit from the No side
And there's the issue your viewpoint of where someone is on the political spectrum is very much based on where you yourself are starting from but remember your personal opinion of where you yourself are on the spectrum may be completely wrong.
However, back to the glassing of people and the failing to declare gifts if indeed that is what Boris did. These are laws that at present exist and hence you would think that short of changing them (their prerogative) they should be followed. They might be used politically but this is analogous to the expenses scandal. They are being applied across the board. And I'm also not 100% sure the Cons party would endorse your view of the law either.
All speaking of which, I yesterday bought Jonathan Sumption's book which I have just started and is already excellent.
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/1387320496685998080?s=20
Perhaps PB Tories will be able to explain who initially paid for the soft furnishings. Because Johnson sure as sh1t wouldn't.
They are glad the most stressful thing they had to was work out who was going to pay for David Cameron's legal fees at the Leveson inquiry.
Honourable man that Dave is he decided to foot his own legal fees rather than bill some to the government and some to the Tory party.
He is merely elected using the Conservative label and will only stay leader of it while he remains electable
A car, hotels, etc.
1) I am a Tory activist. Pretty committed one too.
2) I don't think Laura K is left wing - I'm not sure I know her politics at all. Which is quite a good thing in a BBC journo I reckon.
3) I'm pretty concerned about the political ramifications of these revelations. For me the biggest political impact will come from one or both of a) the suggestion that JL furnishings are a nightmare and b) that they seem to have spent big bucks on something which wasn't necessarily within their budget
4) Whilst it clearly does matter, legally, who paid for what, when and where, I suspect it won't be this that cuts through. I'm disappointed in activists who think it doesn't actually matter. We should hold our elected officials to account.
5) I've never really thought Boris would be leader at the next election. This may hasten his departure in my mind.
6) I still think we'll do rather well next Thursday.
The man who declared a £250,000 salary was chickenfeed?
What seems like has happened is that Boris got someone to donate to renovate the flat. This rumour has been swirling about for a while. With many party members not particularly happy about their party subscriptions been used in this way.
Something happened either it all leaked out or someone pointed out that this was not compliant with party donations so Boris has put his hand in his pocket and ended up paying for it himself.
If that is the big story....
Wonder what it will do for marginal turnout?
Or, to put it another way: when even your normal opponents agree with you that someone, nominally, on the opponent's team has done something that stinks, then that's a big thing. You're clearly biased against your opponent, they are not, so you trumpet their view because why would they say that if it wasn't true?* Dubya wasn't anti-GOP, but he knew Trump stank. The Mail is hardly anti-Tory, but they say Johnson stinks.
*There are of course a multitude of other reasons, including personal grudges.
Honestly the nicest politician I have ever met. I don't think his warmth comes across on screen, but person to person, amongst colleagues, I can see it working.
It'll be spun as Sunak values money over lives then it won't be a walk in the park for him.
Not sure how that works.....
Outsider for the leadership if Johnson goes in the next few months, Matt Hancock. Don't laugh, can sell the NHS didn't collapse like India, and the vaccine rollout.
Ditto Nadhim Zahawi on the latter front.
Classic Tory if ever I saw one.
I did like this quote about Cummings, the man who brings nuclear weapons to a pillow fight.
In a sense, it's unfair that these things matter, but they do. I just cannot see any of them as strong contenders if Johnson falls under a John Lewis van.
Presumably you're expecting one to do so, right?
The most telling point was the silence that fell over the house when Starmer read out the list of Nolan principles.
In my long experience as a councillor, when the chamber fell quiet was always when the person speaking was making a particularly telling point. If you were in there, you could feel it.
Liz Truss is the dark horse. Done a great job on trade. Proper quite dry conservative. Not tainted by any of the covid stuff. Sound on wokery. Doesn't secretly crave Islington voters. Third female Tory PM.
I don't think people will care though, financial responsibility is very early 2010s.
#PMQs https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1387390136695107588/video/1