Love the selectivity of which ‘poor headlines’ get your attention and need to be commented on.
I have actively posted about Scots independence for a long time and as my wife who is a Scot values the union of course I will post anything relevant to the discussions
There seems to be lot of noise over Boris wallpaper but for me the significant thing yesterday was his rejection at the dispatch box on his alleged covid comments
If a tape or recording is produced that he did say those words than his has to resign
To be fair, it's about time someone did produce the evidence. You could say 'how about two trustworthy witnesses', but how many trustworthy people are likely to be around our current PM?
Yes, but you mean people who are prepared to lie on the PM’S behalf.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
Evening all, I was wondering if anyone had a high level overview of demand for vaccines by state in the US? I'm getting slightly nervous that the US South and France we could have issues reaching the 75-80% mark.
US states fall into three broad categories:
- Vaccine lovers, where they've reached 50% of adults jabbed at least once, and per day numbers remain consistently high. This is - frankly - the North East, the Midwest, Florida and the West Coast.
- The super sceptics, where only 30-33% of people have had at least one jab, and the numbers getting vaccinated fall every day. This is the Deep South.
- Everywhere else.
I think it's highly likely that Alabama and Mississippi will top out at less than 40% vaccinated.
It's also quite possible that most EU countries will have surpassed those states by the end of next week. (Finland, for example, has surpassed them even without using Sputnik-V.)
I am reasonably optimistic about the 'everywhere else' category getting to relatively high levels of uptake, albeit more slowly than the enthusiasts. I fear for Trumpland.
Alabama.
- has received close to 4 million vaccines from the Federal Government, but has put less than 2.5 million in the arms of its citizens
- Is averaging about 12-13,000 jabs a day, down 30% from last week, and down 60% from the levels of a month ago.
First jabs are now under 3,000 per day.
Currently just 30% of Alabaman adults have had at least one shot of the vaccine.
But at 3,000 a day (and dropping), that number is going to end up stalling at 35-36%.
How many in Alabama are living hand to mouth with multiple jobs? Could there be a correlation?
There seems to be lot of noise over Boris wallpaper but for me the significant thing yesterday was his rejection at the dispatch box on his alleged covid comments
If a tape or recording is produced that he did say those words than his has to resign
To be fair, it's about time someone did produce the evidence. You could say 'how about two trustworthy witnesses', but how many trustworthy people are likely to be around our current PM?
The fact that multiple people who were within earshot (and hence somewhere in the inner circle) are apparently prepared to testify on oath that they heard those exact words, is pretty strong evidence, surely?
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Reading this you’d think he is struggling to meet his fuel bills, not spending tens of thousands on gold wallpaper.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Personally, I think having a PM who is made to worry about money is a good thing. It puts them in the same situation as the rest of us.
Johnson and Symonds have the problem of hanging around with very rich people. It gives them expensive tastes that they cannot afford, and is a sure fire recipie for dissatisfaction.
There seems to be lot of noise over Boris wallpaper but for me the significant thing yesterday was his rejection at the dispatch box on his alleged covid comments
If a tape or recording is produced that he did say those words than his has to resign
To be fair, it's about time someone did produce the evidence. You could say 'how about two trustworthy witnesses', but how many trustworthy people are likely to be around our current PM?
The fact that multiple people who were within earshot (and hence somewhere in the inner circle) are apparently prepared to testify on oath that they heard those exact words, is pretty strong evidence, surely?
Not until they do and produce evidence
Our PM appears willing to testify on oath that he didn't!
The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
There seems to be lot of noise over Boris wallpaper but for me the significant thing yesterday was his rejection at the dispatch box on his alleged covid comments
If a tape or recording is produced that he did say those words than his has to resign
To be fair, it's about time someone did produce the evidence. You could say 'how about two trustworthy witnesses', but how many trustworthy people are likely to be around our current PM?
The fact that multiple people who were within earshot (and hence somewhere in the inner circle) are apparently prepared to testify on oath that they heard those exact words, is pretty strong evidence, surely?
Not until they do and produce evidence
Our PM appears willing to testify on oath that he didn't!
He stated at the dispatch box yesterday he didn't
It is time for those who said he did to put up or shut up
New York Times: Others, however, predicted that the flap over Mr. Johnson’s refurbishment of his apartment would throw a harsh spotlight on his sense of impunity, lack of transparency and unwillingness to make do with the perks offered a prime minister.
Mr. Johnson already has access to an annual public grant of £30,000 ($41,600) to upgrade his quarters. Newspaper reports say he augmented that with funds from a Conservative Party donor because Ms. Symonds wanted to get rid of the furniture used by his predecessor, Theresa May, which had been described as being in the style of the British department store John Lewis.
The government insists that Mr. Johnson paid for the upgrade out of his own pocket, though it is unclear whether he repaid money from the donor. However it was financed, the couple’s apparent disdain for John Lewis-style décor may sit badly with ordinary people, for whom the store is a symbol of bourgeois prosperity.
Love the selectivity of which ‘poor headlines’ get your attention and need to be commented on.
I have actively posted about Scots independence for a long time and as my wife who is a Scot values the union of course I will post anything relevant to the discussions
Mo Salah probably isn’t the ideal poster boy given he contracted covid at his brother’s Egyptian wedding where there was zero covid protocol. London appears to be the region with the lowest uptake (around 85%) so nationally we should be aiming for 90% or above.
The most popular TV station in France said today that supply is up to 200,000 doses per day higher than demand (which is why their vaccination rate is still miles behind the UK and Germany). I think they’ll be lucky to get 65% of the country vaccinated given current scepticism.
France and Germany aren't very far apart, and both are doing better than the EU average for first doses.
France also doesn't seem to have a big gap between doses recieved (22.3m) and doses administered (19.6m). That gap is smaller proportionally than Germany (29.7m vs 25.5m).
Be careful, your source is showing percentage of adults not percentage of population which is normally used in international comparisons.
Hence why that's showing a much, much higher percentage for first doses than Our World In Data shows. Germany 23.7% (vs 28.1%) and France 21.0% (vs 26.7%)
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't want someone motivated by greed. The remuneration also isn't trivial. Also the post position earnings are huge.
Defra Committee cross party MPs release bruising report on “considerable trade friction” & “substantial” new red tape leading to “substantive & enduring” post Brexit costs for food exporters.
Defra Committee cross party MPs release bruising report on “considerable trade friction” & “substantial” new red tape leading to “substantive & enduring” post Brexit costs for food exporters.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Reading this you’d think he is struggling to meet his fuel bills, not spending tens of thousands on gold wallpaper.
No, I agree with @Foxy that the problem is that they hang around with very rich people and aspire to a life style he cannot afford, at least as PM. He probably could if his earning capacity was unrestricted. I also take @Scott_xP 's point that he didn't exactly have this thrust upon him, he worked damn hard to get it. But I suspect that many high flyers who might make better PMs do not and choose not to either enter or remain in politics. The lack of privacy, the personal abuse and the relatively poor wages put people off. That is not helping the pool of candidates.
I also don't want us to get to the US situation where serious candidates for Presidency are pretty much restricted to millionaires plus who can afford to cross subsidise their passion in the way that Rishi and, to a lesser extent, Cameron did.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Personally, I think having a PM who is made to worry about money is a good thing. It puts them in the same situation as the rest of us.
Johnson and Symonds have the problem of hanging around with very rich people. It gives them expensive tastes that they cannot afford, and is a sure fire recipie for dissatisfaction.
As I have said the rumours I am hearing is that the SNP vote is "soft" and turnout may be a factor for them. They start from a position of overwhelming strength of course and even a modest step back may still leave them in control but the whole Salmond thing and indeed the bitterness between the SNP and Alba is not generating enthusiasm. Its going to be interesting.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Personally, I think having a PM who is made to worry about money is a good thing. It puts them in the same situation as the rest of us.
Johnson and Symonds have the problem of hanging around with very rich people. It gives them expensive tastes that they cannot afford, and is a sure fire recipie for dissatisfaction.
It's also cakeism in action.
For most people, there's a trade-off between doing something that pays the bills and something enjoyable/satisfying. Ask people working, say, in music if you're not sure how that works.
Boris has known all along that politics is fun, exciting and has the potential to actually make a difference. The trade-off is making less money than he could elsewhere, though hardly poverty wages.
Defra Committee cross party MPs release bruising report on “considerable trade friction” & “substantial” new red tape leading to “substantive & enduring” post Brexit costs for food exporters.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
I think we also can assume Starmer wouldn't have presided over a pile of bodies quite as high as that of Johnson. Last time I looked Sturgeon managed a pile one third smaller and Drakeford one quarter smaller. The difference is almost certainly down to the decisions each leader took.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
That is a very fair point.
I suspect you are typical of the voting population of the UK
Does his appointment of someone who called the vaccine programme correctly (a very big feather in his cap) absolve him of blame apportionment when he gets things wrong with his other duties? It doesn't do it for me, but it would seem for the moment at least it does it for the majority.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Personally, I think having a PM who is made to worry about money is a good thing. It puts them in the same situation as the rest of us.
Johnson and Symonds have the problem of hanging around with very rich people. It gives them expensive tastes that they cannot afford, and is a sure fire recipie for dissatisfaction.
Is that a call to sack Rishi?
He certainly spends like he has never had to worry about the bills coming in.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
That’s not true. Both were pretty decisive. Brown acted fast with the banks. May was hardly slow on Brexit. The problem May faced was her own back benches stabbed her in the back by not supporting her deal. And guess what, who was the ring leader of that? Our resident John Lewis hater.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't want someone motivated by greed. The remuneration also isn't trivial. Also the post position earnings are huge.
The post position earnings are huge, and ... that brings me to my point.
Bojo seems to have been a bit economical with the truth over who paid for some wallpaper.
This seems to me to be completely trivial ... in comparison with David Cameron's behaviour.
I have always found -- sadly -- 'Parkinson's Law' to apply in political corruption.
There is much more fuss over small sums that are easily visualized (fiddling the photocopying budget, like Christopher Davies) than the really, really huge scams (Greensill's collapse looks like costing UK taxpayers 5 billion pounds).
I think it is David Cameron, Greensill & Gupta who should be under the harsh spotlight.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
I think we also can assume Starmer wouldn't have presided over a pile of bodies quite as high as that of Johnson. Last time I looked Sturgeon managed a pile one third smaller and Drakeford one quarter smaller. The difference is almost certainly down to the decisions each leader took.
I think that is a very simplistic view. The final autopsy on Covid in the months and years to come will show a huge range of structural factors came into play in causing death, not least the scale of urban poverty, the racial composition of that poverty and transport. For example, Sturgeon and Drakeford don't have to contend with anything like Heathrow, Gatwick and the port of Dover/Eurotunnel as vectors of infection.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Personally, I think having a PM who is made to worry about money is a good thing. It puts them in the same situation as the rest of us.
Johnson and Symonds have the problem of hanging around with very rich people. It gives them expensive tastes that they cannot afford, and is a sure fire recipie for dissatisfaction.
Is that a call to sack Rishi?
He certainly spends like he has never had to worry about the bills coming in.
Yet yesterday the argument was that his arguments against lockdowns 2 and 3 (i.e. avoiding spending money) was the reason why he could never be PM..
And I really don't think it matters providing the money spent keeping the economy going was a one off and we aren't left with a structural hole in the budget there is nothing to worry about.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
That’s not true. Both were pretty decisive. Brown acted fast with the banks. May was hardly slow on Brexit. The problem May faced was her own back benches stabbed her in the back by not supporting her deal. And guess what, who was the ring leader of that? Our resident John Lewis hater.
And when it came to the crucial, life-or-death decisions to lock down, Boris did dither. Every single time.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
I think we also can assume Starmer wouldn't have presided over a pile of bodies quite as high as that of Johnson. Last time I looked Sturgeon managed a pile one third smaller and Drakeford one quarter smaller. The difference is almost certainly down to the decisions each leader took.
On the other hand the key incontestable facts for many people is that that (a) they are not dead and (b) they have had, or about to have, a vaccination. That's probably good enough for them.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
I think we also can assume Starmer wouldn't have presided over a pile of bodies quite as high as that of Johnson. Last time I looked Sturgeon managed a pile one third smaller and Drakeford one quarter smaller. The difference is almost certainly down to the decisions each leader took.
That’s a false conclusion - they all benefited from the decisions that the UK government took over vaccines. I suspect it’s quite likely that either of them would have included I’m the UK in the EU scheme in a counterfactual scenario. But you can’t just cherry pick the good decisions and add them all together
God, are you lot still boring off about wallpaper gate and bodies gate?
Oh, I think that the possibility of the PM lying about it in Parliament is a big deal.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knows not to ask a question unless he knows the answer already. This issue plays to his strengths, and a row about home decoration does strike a chord in Middle Britain.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
That’s not true. Both were pretty decisive. Brown acted fast with the banks. May was hardly slow on Brexit. The problem May faced was her own back benches stabbed her in the back by not supporting her deal. And guess what, who was the ring leader of that? Our resident John Lewis hater.
And when it came to the crucial, life-or-death decisions to lock down, Boris did dither. Every single time.
Of course all the experts on here knew all, knew everything and were not in the hotseat at the time so the decision was simple geddit..... Its like being on who wants to be a millionaire, screaming the answer at the contestant on the tv...
Just an observation. Those political opponents who want Boris gone want him gone because Brexit. They will hold that against him until their dying breath.
If he should depart the stage, to be replaced by say Rishi Sunak, then my experience on the doorsteps is that there is a significant vote that would return to the Conservatives, from both the LibDems and DNV, that currently just cannot stomach Boris.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
I think we also can assume Starmer wouldn't have presided over a pile of bodies quite as high as that of Johnson. Last time I looked Sturgeon managed a pile one third smaller and Drakeford one quarter smaller. The difference is almost certainly down to the decisions each leader took.
The difference between Wales & England is about 10 per cent.
Wales has a death rate of ~ 1800 COVID deaths per million, England has a death rate of ~ 2000 per million.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
I'm not sure I agree. I don't want someone motivated by greed. The remuneration also isn't trivial. Also the post position earnings are huge.
The post position earnings are huge, and ... that brings me to my point.
Bojo seems to have been a bit economical with the truth over who paid for some wallpaper.
This seems to me to be completely trivial ... in comparison with David Cameron's behaviour.
I have always found -- sadly -- 'Parkinson's Law' to apply in political corruption.
There is much more fuss over small sums that are easily visualized (fiddling the photocopying budget, like Christopher Davies) than the really, really huge scams (Greensill's collapse looks like costing UK taxpayers 5 billion pounds).
I think it is David Cameron, Greensill & Gupta who should be under the harsh spotlight.
Do you remember the Peter Hain case? As I recall (and I haven't looked up the details, so they may be in error) it related to who paid what for his Deputy Leadership campaign, which in the grand scheme of things was a fairly trivial amount. The b****** tried to blag it out, but the press and TV news campaigns calling him out were relentless for over a week, until he quite rightly fell on his sword.
Hain deserved to go, why is Johnson so special?
P.S. Just got my Regional list flyer through for "vote workers party" ( I am not bothering to punctuate because they didn't). Pictures of what look like three of Dexy's Midnight Runners and Gorgeous George, should I be tempted?
God, are you lot still boring off about wallpaper gate and bodies gate?
No, about whether or not the PM's word can be trusted, and what his (and Ms Symonds') motivations are
Boris Johnson is many things but he has not risen to the highest office of the land by being a fool. I’m sure he knew what ground he’s on before speaking in Parliament yesterday (perhaps a glance through Bill Clinton’s memoirs first).
Starmer meanwhile thinks himself oh so clever, using little barrister tricks to try and trip up his opponent. But he’s not a politician. He’s also not Jason Bourne, who perhaps could strike a fatal blow with a wallpaper roll. A good politician would instead be capitalising on the idea that Man of the People Johnson looks down on people who shop at John Lewis. There’s fewer of them than there used to be but enough that Starmer might be able to claim a creditable result from the locals and give him precious momentum. Like Alex Ferguson winning the Milk Cup early on with Man Utd when on the verge of the sack.
Meanwhile the other people who are not fools and who certainly enjoy the trappings of power, are Tory MPs. Last I checked, they’re the only ones capable of causing an early bath for Johnson over these concocted “scandals”. And they know that turfing out Johnson on silly grounds, who only a year and a bit ago secured a huge personal mandate from the electorate, would be seen as being as anti democratic as Starmer v1.0 was over Brexit.
We are entering the longest and deepest silly season in Westminster history, with journos and insiders having barely had a chance to catch breath since June 2016. Wake me up in the autumn.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
As did Johnson of course on lockdown. With catastrophic results.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
I think you are thinking of a different flat...
Lord Irvine's flat, which we are still incensed by, and talking about, almost a quarter of a century later.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Personally, I think having a PM who is made to worry about money is a good thing. It puts them in the same situation as the rest of us.
Johnson and Symonds have the problem of hanging around with very rich people. It gives them expensive tastes that they cannot afford, and is a sure fire recipie for dissatisfaction.
Is that a call to sack Rishi?
He certainly spends like he has never had to worry about the bills coming in.
Yet yesterday the argument was that his arguments against lockdowns 2 and 3 (i.e. avoiding spending money) was the reason why he could never be PM..
And I really don't think it matters providing the money spent keeping the economy going was a one off and we aren't left with a structural hole in the budget there is nothing to worry about.
I recognise that I am significantly more fiscally dry than most on here, but I don't think that spending is stopping any time soon.
As a country we are spending like Lulu Lytle on a John Lewis budget.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
That’s not true. Both were pretty decisive. Brown acted fast with the banks. May was hardly slow on Brexit. The problem May faced was her own back benches stabbed her in the back by not supporting her deal. And guess what, who was the ring leader of that? Our resident John Lewis hater.
And when it came to the crucial, life-or-death decisions to lock down, Boris did dither. Every single time.
Of course all the experts on here knew all, knew everything and were not in the hotseat at the time so the decision was simple geddit..... Its like being on who wants to be a millionaire, screaming the answer at the contestant on the tv...
For lockdowns 2 and 3, there was plenty of evidence from around the world that the it's better to lockdown sooner. That delay just means more deaths and a longer, harder lockdown to get the wave back under control. And there was expert advice in the public domain. In August, we were told that it could be pubs or schools open, but not both. Before Christmas, we were told that a Christmas Truce would need about a month's lockdown afterwards.
And yes, PM is a tough job, with huge decisions every day. But the idea that Johnson is any more decisive than May or Brown is for the birds.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
Just an observation. Those political opponents who want Boris gone want him gone because Brexit. They will hold that against him until their dying breath.
Just an observation. Those political opponents who want Boris gone want him gone because Brexit. They will hold that against him until their dying breath.
If he should depart the stage, to be replaced by say Rishi Sunak, then my experience on the doorsteps is that there is a significant vote that would return to the Conservatives, from both the LibDems and DNV, that currently just cannot stomach Boris.
Tories absent Boris are not easier to beat.
We would all be Tories if it wasn't for Brexit is an interesting idea.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
I think you are thinking of a different flat...
Lord Irvine's flat, which we are still incensed by, and talking about, almost a quarter of a century later.
Mea culpa. I brought it up to expose the hypocrisy of the left
Listening to brief reporting of the Biden speech, it has a "Maggie but approaching a similar place from the opposite direction" feel about it.
One of Maggie's distinctives was that the pace of change became a way to drive further change before the last change had been absorbed by opponents.
Blair tried a similar thing but bottled it on some matters - as he admitted.
'Sunshades Joe' (he may be going for 'Maverick') is trying - I think - to "Europeanise" some aspects of US Govt (child benefit, gun control ...) to some extent, and he is driving it like Maggie because he can only be sure of I think two years.
But he isn't going to get to even where Maggie left it in one jump.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
That’s not true. Both were pretty decisive. Brown acted fast with the banks. May was hardly slow on Brexit. The problem May faced was her own back benches stabbed her in the back by not supporting her deal. And guess what, who was the ring leader of that? Our resident John Lewis hater.
And when it came to the crucial, life-or-death decisions to lock down, Boris did dither. Every single time.
Of course all the experts on here knew all, knew everything and were not in the hotseat at the time so the decision was simple geddit..... Its like being on who wants to be a millionaire, screaming the answer at the contestant on the tv...
For lockdowns 2 and 3, there was plenty of evidence from around the world that the it's better to lockdown sooner. That delay just means more deaths and a longer, harder lockdown to get the wave back under control. And there was expert advice in the public domain. In August, we were told that it could be pubs or schools open, but not both. Before Christmas, we were told that a Christmas Truce would need about a month's lockdown afterwards.
And yes, PM is a tough job, with huge decisions every day. But the idea that Johnson is any more decisive than May or Brown is for the birds.
Hmm we don't want any Blair type decisiveness. That killed millions of people.. and still is...
Mo Salah probably isn’t the ideal poster boy given he contracted covid at his brother’s Egyptian wedding where there was zero covid protocol. London appears to be the region with the lowest uptake (around 85%) so nationally we should be aiming for 90% or above.
The most popular TV station in France said today that supply is up to 200,000 doses per day higher than demand (which is why their vaccination rate is still miles behind the UK and Germany). I think they’ll be lucky to get 65% of the country vaccinated given current scepticism.
France and Germany aren't very far apart, and both are doing better than the EU average for first doses.
France also doesn't seem to have a big gap between doses recieved (22.3m) and doses administered (19.6m). That gap is smaller proportionally than Germany (29.7m vs 25.5m).
Be careful, your source is showing percentage of adults not percentage of population which is normally used in international comparisons.
Hence why that's showing a much, much higher percentage for first doses than Our World In Data shows. Germany 23.7% (vs 28.1%) and France 21.0% (vs 26.7%)
It is also ignoring the delay to first doses becoming active.
That is the trick being played by eg France and Belgium to justify early opening while vax protection is low and cases in the wild are high.
This is their gamble.
The EuCo have also pivoted to calling one dose and no delay "vaccinated".
They will be blaming national healthcare systems when people continue dying.
Best thing that could happen for Sturgeon. The best thing for the SNP is to agitate for independence whilst never achieving it. Keeps them in power in their little backwater indefinitely...
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
I think you are thinking of a different flat...
Lord Irvine's flat, which we are still incensed by, and talking about, almost a quarter of a century later.
Mea culpa. I brought it up to expose the hypocrisy of the left
I don't see hypocrisy from Labour now as I didn't see hypocrisy from the Conservative Party then. If it needs calling out, call it out.
A devious unscrupulous psychopath out to get you whatever the cost......he'll stop at nothing with no fear for himself or the damage he'll cause to others...an evil genius out for revenge from the powerful man who has stolen and destroyed his life........
'No Country for Old Men' starring Javier Bardem showing at a cinema near you
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
I think we also can assume Starmer wouldn't have presided over a pile of bodies quite as high as that of Johnson. Last time I looked Sturgeon managed a pile one third smaller and Drakeford one quarter smaller. The difference is almost certainly down to the decisions each leader took.
That’s a false conclusion - they all benefited from the decisions that the UK government took over vaccines. I suspect it’s quite likely that either of them would have included I’m the UK in the EU scheme in a counterfactual scenario. But you can’t just cherry pick the good decisions and add them all together
Indeed. My post is against cherry picking arguments, in this case on vaccines alone.
Mo Salah probably isn’t the ideal poster boy given he contracted covid at his brother’s Egyptian wedding where there was zero covid protocol. London appears to be the region with the lowest uptake (around 85%) so nationally we should be aiming for 90% or above.
The most popular TV station in France said today that supply is up to 200,000 doses per day higher than demand (which is why their vaccination rate is still miles behind the UK and Germany). I think they’ll be lucky to get 65% of the country vaccinated given current scepticism.
France and Germany aren't very far apart, and both are doing better than the EU average for first doses.
France also doesn't seem to have a big gap between doses recieved (22.3m) and doses administered (19.6m). That gap is smaller proportionally than Germany (29.7m vs 25.5m).
Be careful, your source is showing percentage of adults not percentage of population which is normally used in international comparisons.
Hence why that's showing a much, much higher percentage for first doses than Our World In Data shows. Germany 23.7% (vs 28.1%) and France 21.0% (vs 26.7%)
It is also ignoring the delay to first doses becoming active.
That is the trick being played by eg France and Belgium to justify early opening while vax protection is low and cases in the wild are high.
This is their gamble.
The EuCo have also pivoted to calling one dose and no delay "vaccinated".
They will be blaming national healthcare systems when people continue dying.
I don't know why you don't go to primary sources, eg Germany reached 24.7% on Tuesday https://impfdashboard.de/
Just been listening to Nadhim Zahawi being trolled about wallpaper on the today programme for most of what I take it should have been about vaccination rollouts.
He needs to learn from Hancock how to close down an offtopic journo. The way he sat on Laura K yesterday was a delight, after she blew it by leading with a 'scandal' question first, and lost her Covid question. Later journos asked it as a supplementary.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
I think we also can assume Starmer wouldn't have presided over a pile of bodies quite as high as that of Johnson. Last time I looked Sturgeon managed a pile one third smaller and Drakeford one quarter smaller. The difference is almost certainly down to the decisions each leader took.
The difference between Wales & England is about 10 per cent.
Wales has a death rate of ~ 1800 COVID deaths per million, England has a death rate of ~ 2000 per million.
The 10 per cent could be due to many factors.
Thanks. Checked the FT tracker just now. On their figures Wales 12% less and Scotland 30% less.
Evening all, I was wondering if anyone had a high level overview of demand for vaccines by state in the US? I'm getting slightly nervous that the US South and France we could have issues reaching the 75-80% mark.
US states fall into three broad categories:
- Vaccine lovers, where they've reached 50% of adults jabbed at least once, and per day numbers remain consistently high. This is - frankly - the North East, the Midwest, Florida and the West Coast.
- The super sceptics, where only 30-33% of people have had at least one jab, and the numbers getting vaccinated fall every day. This is the Deep South.
- Everywhere else.
I think it's highly likely that Alabama and Mississippi will top out at less than 40% vaccinated.
It's also quite possible that most EU countries will have surpassed those states by the end of next week. (Finland, for example, has surpassed them even without using Sputnik-V.)
I am reasonably optimistic about the 'everywhere else' category getting to relatively high levels of uptake, albeit more slowly than the enthusiasts. I fear for Trumpland.
Alabama.
- has received close to 4 million vaccines from the Federal Government, but has put less than 2.5 million in the arms of its citizens
- Is averaging about 12-13,000 jabs a day, down 30% from last week, and down 60% from the levels of a month ago.
First jabs are now under 3,000 per day.
Currently just 30% of Alabaman adults have had at least one shot of the vaccine.
But at 3,000 a day (and dropping), that number is going to end up stalling at 35-36%.
There is an interesting question here - and one I do not for a minute pretend to know the answer to.
At what point does the anti-vaxxer propaganda become the equivalent of shouting fire in a theatre?
We all understand the concept of the very limited examples of limitations on freedom of speech - incitement to violence and 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' being the two most obvious examples. At what point - if ever - can we reasonably decide that the lies being perpetuated by the anti-vaxxers is so dangerous it counts as endangerment and that if people die as a consequence then those spreading the lies should be prosecuted?
I don't know the answer to this and perhaps the answer for me is never. But I think it is a debate at least worth having as some powerful figures continue to undermine the vaccination campaigns around the world.
I think it's worth asking the question occasionally, even if you always end up with the same answer. My answer in this case is never.
As a general rule the people who have most to fear from free speech are those who are wrong. Historically this has mainly been autocrats of one variety or another, and religious types trying to impose religious uniformity.
On vaccines, and modern medicine generally, we have science on our side, and we should not seek to take shortcuts for the task of developing the good speech on science to drive out the bad speech of misinformation. And we of course also need to have free speech so that we are able to correct mistakes when they happen.
I think what distinguishes the times when you might restrict free speech are when the harm that results is immediate, and so there is not the time for good speech to counter bad.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
I think you are thinking of a different flat...
Lord Irvine's flat, which we are still incensed by, and talking about, almost a quarter of a century later.
Indeed, labour paid a heavy electoral price for it as they did the bribes, dodgy deals, backhanders and illegal wars and countless deaths. The voters truly punished them in 2001 and 2005
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
Do you remember the Peter Hain case? As I recall (and I haven't looked up the details, so they may be in error) it related to who paid what for his Deputy Leadership campaign, which in the grand scheme of things was a fairly trivial amount. The b****** tried to blag it out, but the press and TV news campaigns calling him out were relentless for over a week, until he quite rightly fell on his sword.
Hain deserved to go, why is Johnson so special?
P.S. Just got my Regional list flyer through for "vote workers party" ( I am not bothering to punctuate because they didn't). Pictures of what look like three of Dexy's Midnight Runners and Gorgeous George, should I be tempted?
Peter Hain is someone whom I once greatly admired but now belongs with the forever damned.
Three of Dexy's in the Senedd would be great.
And I have always had a soft spot for the voluble, guileful rogue, GG.
Who can forget
"You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay. Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," 😉
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
This reflects my view and after Boris stood at the dispatch box yesterday and denied to the nation using the alleged words, those who said he did need to produce the recording or tape as Boris has to go if proof is revealed
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
You must be joking if you don't think Johnson is the worst. Everything he's done in his life has been late, or at the best last minute, from his school homework, university essays, magazine columns, his decision on Brexit, through to a whole stack of decisions during the pandemic, where his procrastination and desire to say yes to everyone has had deadly consequences.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
I think you are thinking of a different flat...
Lord Irvine's flat, which we are still incensed by, and talking about, almost a quarter of a century later.
Indeed, labour paid a heavy electoral price for it as they did the bribes, dodgy deals, backhanders and illegal wars and countless deaths. The voters truly punished them in 2001 and 2005
I can't disagree with you. But none of that makes Johnson's current local difficulty either right, or go away.
Do you remember the Peter Hain case? As I recall (and I haven't looked up the details, so they may be in error) it related to who paid what for his Deputy Leadership campaign, which in the grand scheme of things was a fairly trivial amount. The b****** tried to blag it out, but the press and TV news campaigns calling him out were relentless for over a week, until he quite rightly fell on his sword.
Hain deserved to go, why is Johnson so special?
P.S. Just got my Regional list flyer through for "vote workers party" ( I am not bothering to punctuate because they didn't). Pictures of what look like three of Dexy's Midnight Runners and Gorgeous George, should I be tempted?
Peter Hain is someone whom I once greatly admired but now belongs with the forever damned.
Three of Dexy's in the Senedd would be great.
And I have always had a soft spot for the voluble, guileful rogue, GG.
Who can forget
"You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay. Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," 😉
To be clear, the French firm Sanofi, failing to produce a successful vaccine and therefore failing to deliver any of the promised 300m doses will not be sued. AstraZeneca, providing vaccines at cost, after we failed to invest in supply chains, and placing our order late, will.
That poll is SNP 45 - 23 Labour. That's a swing of just under 1% to Labour from the 2016 election.
I don't know what swing Labour require to take their easiest target from the SNP, except that it's more than 5% because none are listed on the Wikipedia page for the election. The SNP require a swing of 0.17% to take Dumbarton from Labour.
So, on that poll, the SNP are more likely to make gains from Labour than vice versa. Many votes have already been cast, and polling day is in a week.
Listening to brief reporting of the Biden speech, it has a "Maggie but approaching a similar place from the opposite direction" feel about it.
One of Maggie's distinctives was that the pace of change became a way to drive further change before the last change had been absorbed by opponents.
Blair tried a similar thing but bottled it on some matters - as he admitted.
'Sunshades Joe' (he may be going for 'Maverick') is trying - I think - to "Europeanise" some aspects of US Govt (child benefit, gun control ...) to some extent, and he is driving it like Maggie because he can only be sure of I think two years.
But he isn't going to get to even where Maggie left it in one jump.
Because of the incredibly short Congressional terms, he has the mid terms coming up - which drives the whole "First 100 days thing".
Just an observation. Those political opponents who want Boris gone want him gone because Brexit. They will hold that against him until their dying breath.
If he should depart the stage, to be replaced by say Rishi Sunak, then my experience on the doorsteps is that there is a significant vote that would return to the Conservatives, from both the LibDems and DNV, that currently just cannot stomach Boris.
Tories absent Boris are not easier to beat.
I couldn't give a fuck about Brexit other than it is a monumental mistake, but then so is the voting in of Labour governments.
Plus you lot have no clue what Brexit actually means.
I still care about not having an absolute twat as a PM though.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
I think you are thinking of a different flat...
Lord Irvine's flat, which we are still incensed by, and talking about, almost a quarter of a century later.
Mea culpa. I brought it up to expose the hypocrisy of the left
I don't see hypocrisy from Labour now as I didn't see hypocrisy from the Conservative Party then. If it needs calling out, call it out.
In this instance,the Hypocrisy of Labour needed calling out. . So I did...
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
You must be joking if you don't think Johnson is the worst. Everything he's done in his life has been late, or at the best last minute, from his school homework, university essays, magazine columns, his decision on Brexit, through to a whole stack of decisions during the pandemic, where his procrastination and desire to say yes to everyone has had deadly consequences.
Boris even backed May's Brexit dealnafyer voting against it twice!
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
I think we also can assume Starmer wouldn't have presided over a pile of bodies quite as high as that of Johnson. Last time I looked Sturgeon managed a pile one third smaller and Drakeford one quarter smaller. The difference is almost certainly down to the decisions each leader took.
The difference between Wales & England is about 10 per cent.
Wales has a death rate of ~ 1800 COVID deaths per million, England has a death rate of ~ 2000 per million.
The 10 per cent could be due to many factors.
Thanks. Checked the FT tracker just now. On their figures Wales 12% less and Scotland 30% less.
You’ve set them off now.
Now is not the time to count the air passengers streaming into the UK or the on-off lockdowns or the piled up dead, it’s the time to count vaccines.
Evening all, I was wondering if anyone had a high level overview of demand for vaccines by state in the US? I'm getting slightly nervous that the US South and France we could have issues reaching the 75-80% mark.
US states fall into three broad categories:
- Vaccine lovers, where they've reached 50% of adults jabbed at least once, and per day numbers remain consistently high. This is - frankly - the North East, the Midwest, Florida and the West Coast.
- The super sceptics, where only 30-33% of people have had at least one jab, and the numbers getting vaccinated fall every day. This is the Deep South.
- Everywhere else.
I think it's highly likely that Alabama and Mississippi will top out at less than 40% vaccinated.
It's also quite possible that most EU countries will have surpassed those states by the end of next week. (Finland, for example, has surpassed them even without using Sputnik-V.)
I am reasonably optimistic about the 'everywhere else' category getting to relatively high levels of uptake, albeit more slowly than the enthusiasts. I fear for Trumpland.
Alabama.
- has received close to 4 million vaccines from the Federal Government, but has put less than 2.5 million in the arms of its citizens
- Is averaging about 12-13,000 jabs a day, down 30% from last week, and down 60% from the levels of a month ago.
First jabs are now under 3,000 per day.
Currently just 30% of Alabaman adults have had at least one shot of the vaccine.
But at 3,000 a day (and dropping), that number is going to end up stalling at 35-36%.
There is an interesting question here - and one I do not for a minute pretend to know the answer to.
At what point does the anti-vaxxer propaganda become the equivalent of shouting fire in a theatre?
We all understand the concept of the very limited examples of limitations on freedom of speech - incitement to violence and 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' being the two most obvious examples. At what point - if ever - can we reasonably decide that the lies being perpetuated by the anti-vaxxers is so dangerous it counts as endangerment and that if people die as a consequence then those spreading the lies should be prosecuted?
I don't know the answer to this and perhaps the answer for me is never. But I think it is a debate at least worth having as some powerful figures continue to undermine the vaccination campaigns around the world.
I think it's worth asking the question occasionally, even if you always end up with the same answer. My answer in this case is never.
As a general rule the people who have most to fear from free speech are those who are wrong. Historically this has mainly been autocrats of one variety or another, and religious types trying to impose religious uniformity.
On vaccines, and modern medicine generally, we have science on our side, and we should not seek to take shortcuts for the task of developing the good speech on science to drive out the bad speech of misinformation. And we of course also need to have free speech so that we are able to correct mistakes when they happen.
I think what distinguishes the times when you might restrict free speech are when the harm that results is immediate, and so there is not the time for good speech to counter bad.
Disclaimer: I have had my first jab and eagerly await my second. I find it incredible that people would either not want to have one, or believe that they will receive some of Bill Gates's genes when vaccinated.
But.
Look at Sputnik V. It might have been a batch it might have been a design flaw. But the vaccine was AIUI at least useless and potentially dangerous. At least dangerous if it was useless in giving protection.
Oh but it couldn't happen here. Why TF not? Are we saying that our manufacturing and testing processes are 100% without flaw? If not why wouldn't or couldn't there be a problem with vaccines because British Empire or something.
The vaccine process has been magnificent but achieved at a lightning pace. I have no problem with people being wary.
NEW @instituteforgov report compares spending, resources, and performance of the NHS, schools, and social care in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – Thread of key findings…
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
You must be joking if you don't think Johnson is the worst. Everything he's done in his life has been late, or at the best last minute, from his school homework, university essays, magazine columns, his decision on Brexit, through to a whole stack of decisions during the pandemic, where his procrastination and desire to say yes to everyone has had deadly consequences.
No. I think Boris is an unmitigated disaster. But if he and his scientific advisors were unsure about early lockdown (on account of freedom-loving and a belief that lockdowns didn't work - of all things - respectively) then he made a very difficult decision which effectively damned him if he did and damned if he didn't.
Lock down later as he did (and people were in a de facto lockdown by then anyway) and the virus has more time to take hold; lock down earlier when many thought it was another Bird Flu scare, and people, who had seen pictures of the Chinese being welded into their homes, would have cried hell.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
From my memory the flat at Number 11 wasn't in a great state back in 1997 and various changes had to be made just to make it usable for the people working in Number 10.
Remember that it is only due to Tony Blairs need for space to house his family that the PM moved to No 11. A lot of those initial costs will be just making things habitable for a family..
Interesting charts, if you can get over the ‘less’ solecism.
Does the UK strategy count as eliminationist or containment? It appears to me to have been different things at different times (& in different places).
Essentially no change on 2016, with a 5% SNP -> Green movement. The question is to what extent Sarwar is more transfer friendly than the previous schmuck. Because this is the first ScotPol election since separatism became a very live issue again, we could see increased levels of tactical voting. SNP, Cons losing a couple of seats while Labour stays still/+1/2, Greens gain up to 5 seems the most likely outcome to me.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
It's the question because very clearly the conspicuous and repeated failure to answer it indicates that there is something to hide.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
As a taxpayer are you pleased that we have a ministerial code and laws and that politicians should obey both or face consequences?
I'm not a fan of Bojo. He's lazy, posh, and not half as clever as he thinks he is. But he sorted out the vaccination problem, even if it was by appointing the right woman to the job. The decoration is typical of his blunders.
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
And their capacity to make decisions for good or ill. Our worst PMs, Brown and May being examples, agonised excessively about everything creating paralysis.
That’s not true. Both were pretty decisive. Brown acted fast with the banks. May was hardly slow on Brexit. The problem May faced was her own back benches stabbed her in the back by not supporting her deal. And guess what, who was the ring leader of that? Our resident John Lewis hater.
And when it came to the crucial, life-or-death decisions to lock down, Boris did dither. Every single time.
Of course all the experts on here knew all, knew everything and were not in the hotseat at the time so the decision was simple geddit..... Its like being on who wants to be a millionaire, screaming the answer at the contestant on the tv...
For lockdowns 2 and 3, there was plenty of evidence from around the world that the it's better to lockdown sooner. That delay just means more deaths and a longer, harder lockdown to get the wave back under control. And there was expert advice in the public domain. In August, we were told that it could be pubs or schools open, but not both. Before Christmas, we were told that a Christmas Truce would need about a month's lockdown afterwards.
And yes, PM is a tough job, with huge decisions every day. But the idea that Johnson is any more decisive than May or Brown is for the birds.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
From my memory the flat at Number 11 wasn't in a great state back in 1997 and various changes had to be made just to make it usable for the people working in Number 10.
Remember that it is only due to Tony Blairs need for space to house his family that the PM moved to No 11. A lot of those initial costs will be just making things habitable for a family..
Look at the spending on this chart, it was over the lifetime of New Labour. And again we are talking about a 3 bed flat, £500,000 in 13 years?
There are all sorts of suggestions about the redecoration, but does anyone know (I'm certain someone here does) if a new PM gets an allowance of £30k for redecoration, or it's £30k annually ...... which seems a bit excessive And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
New Labour spent £500,000 of taxpayers money on the flat during their years in office.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
It's not about the flat, its all about the intrigue and perhaps cover-up. There will need to be some startling news on both the intrigue and the cover-up for this to fell Johnson. The flat is a sideshow.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
The discussion here this morning was how on earth could some spend £30K plus a year to upkeep a flat. Labour spent £500K of taxpayers money during their 13 years in office to upkeep this flat. Did TB give it a full makeover each year at the taxpayers expense?
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
From my memory the flat at Number 11 wasn't in a great state back in 1997 and various changes had to be made just to make it usable for the people working in Number 10.
Remember that it is only due to Tony Blairs need for space to house his family that the PM moved to No 11. A lot of those initial costs will be just making things habitable for a family..
It’s a large grade 1 listed residence that sees high profile visitors. Why does anyone care what Tony Blair spent on it, rather than focusing on the litany of abuses he ended up committing to the British people and all those poor buggers in the Middle East?
Equally if you want to create a serious charge sheet against this Prime Minister, it is trivially easy without need of this concocted drama about decorations.
That poll is SNP 45 - 23 Labour. That's a swing of just under 1% to Labour from the 2016 election.
I don't know what swing Labour require to take their easiest target from the SNP, except that it's more than 5% because none are listed on the Wikipedia page for the election. The SNP require a swing of 0.17% to take Dumbarton from Labour.
So, on that poll, the SNP are more likely to make gains from Labour than vice versa. Many votes have already been cast, and polling day is in a week.
Point is that there is a definite trend away from Indy and SNP. 8% is the highest No lead for yonks and it looks increasingly unlikely that SNP will win back their majority which, according to Sir John Curtice, is an absolute prerequisite for IndyRef2. Pretty easy for Boris to say no, without major repercussions.
Basically, the economic case for Indy looks shot and the uncommitted are not being persuaded. The sense of inevitability that came with the 58% Yes polling a few months ago (which has since been proven bogus) has evaporated.
Looking ahead Sturgeon has the prospect of a new, appealing Labour leader to contend with, and much more of a fight for the affections of the Central Belt.
We pay our Prime Minister a comparatively low salary for the job thev do. It is expected that they live above the shop. They have a tenure that can be short, end suddenly or last. The end date often is not of their choosing. It is absurd that decorating and furnishing is not a central government expense. It can be capped at a generous level, above which the PM pays. I don't expect any one of these to live with the interior choices of the former Thatcher Major Blair Brown Cameron May Johnson I would like the PM to have the home they use presented in a way they enjoy. They do long hours, the family should be comfortable in the surroundings.
The whole thing is basically stupid, dull, boring, insignificant and belittling of the media in particular apart from the fact there are rules which should be adhered to. Stupid rules so maybe we should change the rules for the future.
Err, it is a central government expense. £30 000 per annum, and beyond that the PM pays. Therin lies the problem. Johnson didn't pay, at least not until he was caught.
To put it into perspective, that annual decorating allowance is more than median annual income in this country.
Well quite. The idea he’s on the breadline is absurd. The public has a right to know the gifts received by our politicians whether they come in a brown envelope or not.
Boris has led an expensive and highly self indulgent life which involves several ex wives and more children. When in opposition or out of Parliament he could fund such a lifestyle with his writing, after dinner speeches etc which really made it no one's business except his own and that of the various women and children involved.
As PM he is paid much less than he was before and outside earning opportunities obviously don't exist. He has complained before about his financial difficulties and he is very far alone in that. Many PMs over the years have found holding the job to be expensive and potentially ruinous, Harold Wilson amongst them.
We Brits have got a strong tendency to be both puritanical and prurient about this sort of thing, noting that it is still a pretty good wage and that public money is being spent which could no doubt otherwise help a hospital or something. The result is that our PMs all too often end up distracted and worried about money which does not seem to me to be conducive to good government. I do think that we need to be a bit more grown up about this. The wages and the restrictions on earnings really should not become a bar for the job. The quality of candidates is low enough already without reducing it further.
Personally, I think having a PM who is made to worry about money is a good thing. It puts them in the same situation as the rest of us.
Johnson and Symonds have the problem of hanging around with very rich people. It gives them expensive tastes that they cannot afford, and is a sure fire recipie for dissatisfaction.
Boris has recently been through a perhaps expensive divorce and bought a million pound home in South London. If it weren't for these, he probably could afford the posh wallpaper.
But this is why I think Boris might retire early. Not because he will be forced out but simply to earn some wedge on the scale of his predecessors, who left office when younger than he is now.
Interesting charts, if you can get over the ‘less’ solecism.
Does the UK strategy count as eliminationist or containment? It appears to me to have been different things at different times (& in different places).
Comments
Fact Check: President Biden credited both Democrats and Republicans with committing to legislation for $1,400 stimulus checks.
But no congressional Republicans supported the bill.
https://t.co/UpbEpVU2Bm https://t.co/wycOPt3KDX
Not sure why you are upset by this
And was £58k spent or £88k...... £30k allowance plus £58k from 'elsewhere"?
88k total
Johnson and Symonds have the problem of hanging around with very rich people. It gives them expensive tastes that they cannot afford, and is a sure fire recipie for dissatisfaction.
BoZo plotted for years to get the gig.
Only then did he whine about the pay.
It is time for those who said he did to put up or shut up
This is a clear resignation matter
Mr. Johnson already has access to an annual public grant of £30,000 ($41,600) to upgrade his quarters. Newspaper reports say he augmented that with funds from a Conservative Party donor because Ms. Symonds wanted to get rid of the furniture used by his predecessor, Theresa May, which had been described as being in the style of the British department store John Lewis.
The government insists that Mr. Johnson paid for the upgrade out of his own pocket, though it is unclear whether he repaid money from the donor. However it was financed, the couple’s apparent disdain for John Lewis-style décor may sit badly with ordinary people, for whom the store is a symbol of bourgeois prosperity.
No 49 (+1)
Yes 42 (-2)
Undecided 8 (-)
Excl. undecided
No 54 (+2)
Yes 46 (-2)
23-27 April
(chg from 16-20 April) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1387655839088062464/photo/1
Hence why that's showing a much, much higher percentage for first doses than Our World In Data shows. Germany 23.7% (vs 28.1%) and France 21.0% (vs 26.7%)
In the real world, so what?
Starmer is hard-working, committed, but horribly predictable. He'd have appointed a time-server or a political wonk for the vaccine job, who'd have worked with his friends in the EU. I've had both jabs, In that Starmer world, we'd have been writig a jolly firm letter to those cads in AZ.
No matter how useless Bojo is personally, PMs stand or fall on their appointments.
Defra Committee cross party MPs release bruising report on “considerable trade friction” & “substantial” new red tape leading to “substantive & enduring” post Brexit costs for food exporters.
- Flatly contradicts in line 1, PM’s assertion of “no non tariff barriers”. https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1387545230287777792/photo/1
I also don't want us to get to the US situation where serious candidates for Presidency are pretty much restricted to millionaires plus who can afford to cross subsidise their passion in the way that Rishi and, to a lesser extent, Cameron did.
For most people, there's a trade-off between doing something that pays the bills and something enjoyable/satisfying. Ask people working, say, in music if you're not sure how that works.
Boris has known all along that politics is fun, exciting and has the potential to actually make a difference. The trade-off is making less money than he could elsewhere, though hardly poverty wages.
I suspect you are typical of the voting population of the UK
Does his appointment of someone who called the vaccine programme correctly (a very big feather in his cap) absolve him of blame apportionment when he gets things wrong with his other duties? It doesn't do it for me, but it would seem for the moment at least it does it for the majority.
Bojo seems to have been a bit economical with the truth over who paid for some wallpaper.
This seems to me to be completely trivial ... in comparison with David Cameron's behaviour.
I have always found -- sadly -- 'Parkinson's Law' to apply in political corruption.
There is much more fuss over small sums that are easily visualized (fiddling the photocopying budget, like Christopher Davies) than the really, really huge scams (Greensill's collapse looks like costing UK taxpayers 5 billion pounds).
I think it is David Cameron, Greensill & Gupta who should be under the harsh spotlight.
And I really don't think it matters providing the money spent keeping the economy going was a one off and we aren't left with a structural hole in the budget there is nothing to worry about.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knows not to ask a question unless he knows the answer already. This issue plays to his strengths, and a row about home decoration does strike a chord in Middle Britain.
If he should depart the stage, to be replaced by say Rishi Sunak, then my experience on the doorsteps is that there is a significant vote that would return to the Conservatives, from both the LibDems and DNV, that currently just cannot stomach Boris.
Tories absent Boris are not easier to beat.
As everyone keeps saying "its just a flat", how did they manage to spend that much in 13 years?
Wales has a death rate of ~ 1800 COVID deaths per million, England has a death rate of ~ 2000 per million.
The 10 per cent could be due to many factors.
Hain deserved to go, why is Johnson so special?
P.S. Just got my Regional list flyer through for "vote workers party" ( I am not bothering to punctuate because they didn't). Pictures of what look like three of Dexy's Midnight Runners and Gorgeous George, should I be tempted?
Starmer meanwhile thinks himself oh so clever, using little barrister tricks to try and trip up his opponent. But he’s not a politician. He’s also not Jason Bourne, who perhaps could strike a fatal blow with a wallpaper roll. A good politician would instead be capitalising on the idea that Man of the People Johnson looks down on people who shop at John Lewis. There’s fewer of them than there used to be but enough that Starmer might be able to claim a creditable result from the locals and give him precious momentum. Like Alex Ferguson winning the Milk Cup early on with Man Utd when on the verge of the sack.
Meanwhile the other people who are not fools and who certainly enjoy the trappings of power, are Tory MPs. Last I checked, they’re the only ones capable of causing an early bath for Johnson over these concocted “scandals”. And they know that turfing out Johnson on silly grounds, who only a year and a bit ago secured a huge personal mandate from the electorate, would be seen as being as anti democratic as Starmer v1.0 was over Brexit.
We are entering the longest and deepest silly season in Westminster history, with journos and insiders having barely had a chance to catch breath since June 2016. Wake me up in the autumn.
As a country we are spending like Lulu Lytle on a John Lewis budget.
And yes, PM is a tough job, with huge decisions every day. But the idea that Johnson is any more decisive than May or Brown is for the birds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56915918
One of Maggie's distinctives was that the pace of change became a way to drive further change before the last change had been absorbed by opponents.
Blair tried a similar thing but bottled it on some matters - as he admitted.
'Sunshades Joe' (he may be going for 'Maverick') is trying - I think - to "Europeanise" some aspects of US Govt (child benefit, gun control ...) to some extent, and he is driving it like Maggie because he can only be sure of I think two years.
But he isn't going to get to even where Maggie left it in one jump.
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1387655835468304388?s=19
That is the trick being played by eg France and Belgium to justify early opening while vax protection is low and cases in the wild are high.
This is their gamble.
The EuCo have also pivoted to calling one dose and no delay "vaccinated".
They will be blaming national healthcare systems when people continue dying.
'No Country for Old Men' starring Javier Bardem showing at a cinema near you
https://impfdashboard.de/
He needs to learn from Hancock how to close down an offtopic journo. The way he sat on Laura K yesterday was a delight, after she blew it by leading with a 'scandal' question first, and lost her Covid question. Later journos asked it as a supplementary.
As a general rule the people who have most to fear from free speech are those who are wrong. Historically this has mainly been autocrats of one variety or another, and religious types trying to impose religious uniformity.
On vaccines, and modern medicine generally, we have science on our side, and we should not seek to take shortcuts for the task of developing the good speech on science to drive out the bad speech of misinformation. And we of course also need to have free speech so that we are able to correct mistakes when they happen.
I think what distinguishes the times when you might restrict free speech are when the harm that results is immediate, and so there is not the time for good speech to counter bad.
If I were Johnson, the "piles of bodies" comment should be more worrysome. On this issue, he has nailed his colours to the mast. There better not be a recording.
Three of Dexy's in the Senedd would be great.
And I have always had a soft spot for the voluble, guileful rogue, GG.
Who can forget
"You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay. Your hands are shaking. You badly need another drink," 😉
The finest political insult of our generation.
https://twitter.com/EuRollout/status/1387658720843345922?s=20
I don't know what swing Labour require to take their easiest target from the SNP, except that it's more than 5% because none are listed on the Wikipedia page for the election. The SNP require a swing of 0.17% to take Dumbarton from Labour.
So, on that poll, the SNP are more likely to make gains from Labour than vice versa. Many votes have already been cast, and polling day is in a week.
Plus you lot have no clue what Brexit actually means.
I still care about not having an absolute twat as a PM though.
Bring on the Raabmeister.
. So I did...
https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1387500744530665484?s=20
Now is not the time to count the air passengers streaming into the UK or the on-off lockdowns or the piled up dead, it’s the time to count vaccines.
But.
Look at Sputnik V. It might have been a batch it might have been a design flaw. But the vaccine was AIUI at least useless and potentially dangerous. At least dangerous if it was useless in giving protection.
Oh but it couldn't happen here. Why TF not? Are we saying that our manufacturing and testing processes are 100% without flaw? If not why wouldn't or couldn't there be a problem with vaccines because British Empire or something.
The vaccine process has been magnificent but achieved at a lightning pace. I have no problem with people being wary.
NEW @instituteforgov report compares spending, resources, and performance of the NHS, schools, and social care in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland – Thread of key findings…
https://twitter.com/GrahamTAtkins/status/1387674048256217090?s=20
What still staggers me is that it is seen as a scandal now that Boris spent his own money rather than taxpayers money on the flats refurbishment, with the "who paid the invoice first" being the main question.
As a taxpayer I am pleased that this flat which has had hundreds of thousands of my money spent on it in the last 25 years, has now had a refurbishment that cost me nothing.
I very much doubt there is a recording of the "piles of bodies" comment. I also doubt if it was said that he said in the context presented in the press. What I would say is that anyone recording our PM in 10 Downing Street and then releasing that recording to the press would have broken the OSA and would be prosecuted.
Lock down later as he did (and people were in a de facto lockdown by then anyway) and the virus has more time to take hold; lock down earlier when many thought it was another Bird Flu scare, and people, who had seen pictures of the Chinese being welded into their homes, would have cried hell.
Remember that it is only due to Tony Blairs need for space to house his family that the PM moved to No 11. A lot of those initial costs will be just making things habitable for a family..
Does the UK strategy count as eliminationist or containment? It appears to me to have been different things at different times (& in different places).
https://twitter.com/reicherstephen/status/1387663570842923009?s=21
It was international travel vs pubs and schools.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56915918
I couldn't care less if Boris spent £1 million on the refurbishment because he paid for it himself.
Equally if you want to create a serious charge sheet against this Prime Minister, it is trivially easy without need of this concocted drama about decorations.
Basically, the economic case for Indy looks shot and the uncommitted are not being persuaded. The sense of inevitability that came with the 58% Yes polling a few months ago (which has since been proven bogus) has evaporated.
Looking ahead Sturgeon has the prospect of a new, appealing Labour leader to contend with, and much more of a fight for the affections of the Central Belt.
But this is why I think Boris might retire early. Not because he will be forced out but simply to earn some wedge on the scale of his predecessors, who left office when younger than he is now.