(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
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.
He’s got half a bakers dozen to pay through Eton as well. It’s just a temporary liquidity problem though. Every British PM makes out like a bandit once they leave office if that’s what they want.
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?
Tbh all the figures look a bit high. Do they burn the flat's contents each year and start again from scratch? Does each new Prime Minister move into an empty shell that needs to be furnished from scratch?
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.
It does feel like it's kinda 'now or bust' for the SNP.
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?
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.
He’s got half a bakers dozen to pay through Eton as well. It’s just a temporary liquidity problem though. Every British PM makes out like a bandit once they leave office if that’s what they want.
In fact there’s an easy way round it all. A private bank should just give him a £5m unsecured personal loan, with the cost of a suitable life insurance and critical illness policy deducted from the loan proceeds. Repayment date 2030. Job done. Could be arranged in an afternoon. Would it need to be declared?
For those complaining about the tedious redecoration saga, surely the PM has only himself to blame? All he had to do to kill the story stone dead was to give a proper and honest account of the money trail. He's chosen not to do that.
PMQs was interesting yesterday. For the last year, the PM has used PMQs to not answer Starmer's questions and to take every opportunity to tell the country that he is focused on "the people's priorities" and paint a positive vision. Starmer has sat there looking rather cross.
Yesterday, it was the reverse. The PM still chose not to answer the questions, but in the end got very cross and went on a slightly intemperate rant. When the camera panned to Starmer, he looked rather pleased with himself and had a bit of a smirk on his face. I think he thought he'd at last caused the PM significant discomfort.
How to pay for the flat? It might be illegal to bung Boris but is there anything to stop a Tory-supporting billionaire from hiring Carrie at a suitably inflated rate? Then she can write a cheque to the posh people's B&Q like Cherie and SamCam 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.
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.
Million pound home in South London? What, a 1-bed flat in Tooting?
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
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.
It does feel like it's kinda 'now or bust' for the SNP.
The more distance that passes from the Brexit vote, the less desirable Scexit will prove to be. There will be some inflection point when Brexit will actually be a net positive to the unionist cause rather than a hindrance. We might already be there.
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?
Tbh all the figures look a bit high. Do they burn the flat's contents each year and start again from scratch? Does each new Prime Minister move into an empty shell that needs to be furnished from scratch?
Exactly, which is why the fact that this refurb has not been at the taxpayers expense is surely a good thing. But in this pandemic world lets make a scandal out of the fact that a PM paid for the refurbishment of his state owned flat himself rather than charge the taxpayer.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
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 think that's true (I noted your earlier post saying there was little change since 2019, but that was also with Boris Johnson). But supposedly there are lots of people, especially working-class voters, who only vote Tory because they like him, and who might find Sunak too smooth. There are also floating voters who aren't usually right-wing but like Johnson's unpredictability, since they feel that he might as a populist do something helpful that they wouldn't have expected (Trump used to get votes from that group). I'm not sure it's obvious where the balance of advantage lies.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
JL are struggling because the quality of the product and the shopping experience is not representative of the price. It’s a shame because I used to love it but I went recently and it felt a bit like walking round a sad TK Maxx. Hardly any stock, badly laid out, few assistants on hand, rip off prices for mdf. It’s a better experience online but the sheen has definitely rubbed off the brand.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
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?
Tbh all the figures look a bit high. Do they burn the flat's contents each year and start again from scratch? Does each new Prime Minister move into an empty shell that needs to be furnished from scratch?
Exactly, which is why the fact that this refurb has not been at the taxpayers expense is surely a good thing. But in this pandemic world lets make a scandal out of the fact that a PM paid for the refurbishment of his state owned flat himself rather than charge the taxpayer.
Except we think Boris *did* charge the taxpayer right up to the £30,000 annual limit. This row is about who paid the excess.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
That's why it's so damaging. They have essentially outed themselves as members of an entitled upper class looking down not only on the middle class majority but on all those who aspire to be able to afford John Lewis furniture.
John Lewis’s own humorous tweet - saying they have a great range of furniture that would satisfy almost anyone, makes the point perfectly.
As I noted yesterday the giving Boris Johnson a retrospective loan is causing all sorts of problems for the Tory Party, given the way it is set up, it really has no business giving loans to officers of the Party, and looks like not everyone who needed to give authorisation did.
Downing Street is concerned that the involvement of a Tory donor in funding Boris Johnson’s flat renovation has left a damaging paper trail at Conservative Party headquarters.
The Electoral Commission launched an investigation yesterday of the party’s role in funding the redecoration of the home that he shares with his fiancée and son above 11 Downing Street.
It said there were “reasonable grounds to suspect” that the law had been broken because of the failure to report donations.
The commission has the power to order any individual — including the prime minister and his fiancée, Carrie Symonds — to hand over text messages, emails and other information considered relevant to the investigation. It can also compel them to attend interviews. If it is denied access to documents, it can secure a warrant to search for them.
Johnson denied yesterday that he had personally breached the rules. His press secretary said he was prepared to give the commission evidence relating to the funding of the work.
However, The Times has been told of concerns within No 10 about Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ).
“The worry is that there could be a paper trail,” a government source said. “There was a very limited number of people who knew about the funding arrangements at CCHQ. It’s not clear how this will end.”
There is also concern in Downing Street that the Electoral Commission will interview Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s former chief adviser, who described the alleged plan for Tory donors to fund the refurbishment as “unethical” and possibly illegal.
In a 1,000-word blog published last week, Cummings said he had told the prime minister that the plans “almost certainly broke the rules” on the disclosure of donations. He said that he would be happy to speak to the commission.
It was claimed last night that Ben Elliot, joint chairman of the Conservative Party, had warned the prime minister in February last year that the alleged plans were “madness”.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
Quite so.
Four thoughts re this discussion as a whole -
1. Anyone who has been to boarding school can live almost anywhere 2. Mr Johnson et famille also have Chequers. 3. The fuss appears to be about the private flat - not the official rooms - so entertaining official guests is irrelevant. IT's basically a glorified caretaker's flat. 4. 58K on decor and furniture for a flat with a small baby and a reportedly scratchy dog?!?
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
This is a clear resignation matter
I think the opposition are over-blowing this again. When did a personal issue bring down a PM. May - Brexit Policy Cameron - Brexit ref loss Brown - Election and financial crisis Blair - Iraq? Major - ERM policy Thatcher - Poll tax policy Callaghan - Winter of discontent Wilson ? Heath - lost election Douglas Home - lost election Macmillan - Profumo / Ill health
So not for over 50 years. British people value competence. The opposition need to tie in sleaze or personal issues to competence before I will see it as significant, and frankly that should be easy. Boris is incompetent but so are the opposition.
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 think that's true (I noted your earlier post saying there was little change since 2019, but that was also with Boris Johnson). But supposedly there are lots of people, especially working-class voters, who only vote Tory because they like him, and who might find Sunak too smooth. There are also floating voters who aren't usually right-wing but like Johnson's unpredictability, since they feel that he might as a populist do something helpful that they wouldn't have expected (Trump used to get votes from that group). I'm not sure it's obvious where the balance of advantage lies.
Boris gone would certainly help in Scotland. Maybe not in Northern England. A quandary for Tories.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Max I agree but this is in the context of the country giving the govt huge approval ratings for every lockdown and restriction of liberty for the past 13 months.
Why on earth would the govt not continue the motion?
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
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 think that's true (I noted your earlier post saying there was little change since 2019, but that was also with Boris Johnson). But supposedly there are lots of people, especially working-class voters, who only vote Tory because they like him, and who might find Sunak too smooth. There are also floating voters who aren't usually right-wing but like Johnson's unpredictability, since they feel that he might as a populist do something helpful that they wouldn't have expected (Trump used to get votes from that group). I'm not sure it's obvious where the balance of advantage lies.
There's some interesting psephology to be done on this, for sure!
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 think that's true (I noted your earlier post saying there was little change since 2019, but that was also with Boris Johnson). But supposedly there are lots of people, especially working-class voters, who only vote Tory because they like him, and who might find Sunak too smooth. There are also floating voters who aren't usually right-wing but like Johnson's unpredictability, since they feel that he might as a populist do something helpful that they wouldn't have expected (Trump used to get votes from that group). I'm not sure it's obvious where the balance of advantage lies.
Boris gone would certainly help in Scotland. Maybe not in Northern England. A quandary for Tories.
Only if not replaced by Mr Gove (who is, somewhat to my surprise, even less popular in Scotland IIRC).
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?
Tbh all the figures look a bit high. Do they burn the flat's contents each year and start again from scratch? Does each new Prime Minister move into an empty shell that needs to be furnished from scratch?
Exactly, which is why the fact that this refurb has not been at the taxpayers expense is surely a good thing. But in this pandemic world lets make a scandal out of the fact that a PM paid for the refurbishment of his state owned flat himself rather than charge the taxpayer.
Except we think Boris *did* charge the taxpayer right up to the £30,000 annual limit. This row is about who paid the excess.
He said in Parliament yesterday that he paid for it all.
Yesterday PMQs was important for Boris rejection on the record he did not say the alleged comments on covid
If his opponents want to take him down they have to produce the tape or recording, or drop it
Let's see over the next few days if the allegations continue or disappear and if they continue demand the evidence
Why does that even matter though G? It’s shades of Bill and Monica but even less of a big deal because it was just words rather than actions.
Personally I’d be thrilled to have confirmation that Boris was raging against lockdowns and not meekly nodding along to Neil Ferguson and Gove. I asked my MP to no confidence Johnson because I thought he was blind to the harm from lockdowns. Hearing this anecdote makes me like the man again.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
JL are struggling because the quality of the product and the shopping experience is not representative of the price. It’s a shame because I used to love it but I went recently and it felt a bit like walking round a sad TK Maxx. Hardly any stock, badly laid out, few assistants on hand, rip off prices for mdf. It’s a better experience online but the sheen has definitely rubbed off the brand.
This is the problem seen with a lot of shops over the past several years. They aim to save money by cutting staff, not restocking the shelves so often, turning some of the lights off. OK they've cut costs -- well done the finance director! -- but they've also diminished the shopping experience.
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 think that's true (I noted your earlier post saying there was little change since 2019, but that was also with Boris Johnson). But supposedly there are lots of people, especially working-class voters, who only vote Tory because they like him, and who might find Sunak too smooth. There are also floating voters who aren't usually right-wing but like Johnson's unpredictability, since they feel that he might as a populist do something helpful that they wouldn't have expected (Trump used to get votes from that group). I'm not sure it's obvious where the balance of advantage lies.
Boris gone would certainly help in Scotland. Maybe not in Northern England. A quandary for Tories.
Only if not replaced by Mr Gove (who is, somewhat to my surprise, even less popular in Scotland IIRC).
That's true. Gove should have held on to his Aberdonian accent. Rishi, I think, would do pretty well up here.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
If the taxpayer pays for refurbishment of the Prime Minister's flat then the Prime Minister is beholden to the taxpayer.
If an anonymous donor pays for refurbishment of the Prime Minister's flat then the Prime Minister is beholden to that anonymous donor.
That's why we need to know who originally paid.
But it belongs to the taxpayer.
That is the point, people keep saying the refurb was to "his" flat. Its not his flat, it is state owned. When he leaves he cant take the wallpaper with him.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
No it isn't. Which is why the "John Lewis nightmare" comment, if true is a bit snobbish. JL are good enough for very many people in the country and seen as aspirational for many others. And, frankly, when you are only in the place for a short while, have a dog and a baby on the way, spending money on expensive furnishings is bloody daft.
£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly.
The only issue here is if there has been a breach of the rules on donations and/or some quid pro quo. If I had to guess I would plump for the former rather than the latter. The reason it is a story at all is because the PM has been too high handed to provide an explanation when first asked so it looks as if he's got something to hide when the truth may be less sensational than it seems.
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 think that's true (I noted your earlier post saying there was little change since 2019, but that was also with Boris Johnson). But supposedly there are lots of people, especially working-class voters, who only vote Tory because they like him, and who might find Sunak too smooth. There are also floating voters who aren't usually right-wing but like Johnson's unpredictability, since they feel that he might as a populist do something helpful that they wouldn't have expected (Trump used to get votes from that group). I'm not sure it's obvious where the balance of advantage lies.
Boris gone would certainly help in Scotland. Maybe not in Northern England. A quandary for Tories.
Only if not replaced by Mr Gove (who is, somewhat to my surprise, even less popular in Scotland IIRC).
That's true. Gove should have held on to his Aberdonian accent. Rishi, I think, would do pretty well up here.
Or Abrdnn accnt as it is now known, I gather. But the natives would not understand the right Doric down south.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
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?
Tbh all the figures look a bit high. Do they burn the flat's contents each year and start again from scratch? Does each new Prime Minister move into an empty shell that needs to be furnished from scratch?
Exactly, which is why the fact that this refurb has not been at the taxpayers expense is surely a good thing. But in this pandemic world lets make a scandal out of the fact that a PM paid for the refurbishment of his state owned flat himself rather than charge the taxpayer.
Except we think Boris *did* charge the taxpayer right up to the £30,000 annual limit. This row is about who paid the excess.
He said in Parliament yesterday that he paid for it all.
Of course he said he paid for it. But who put the money into his pocket to enable him to pay for it out of his own pocket?
Can you really be as stupid as you appear? (Sorry if that's offensive, I didn't have time to get it approved into inoffensive baby talk by the BoJo loyalists.)
If the taxpayer pays for refurbishment of the Prime Minister's flat then the Prime Minister is beholden to the taxpayer.
If an anonymous donor pays for refurbishment of the Prime Minister's flat then the Prime Minister is beholden to that anonymous donor.
That's why we need to know who originally paid.
But it belongs to the taxpayer.
That is the point, people keep saying the refurb was to "his" flat. Its not his flat, it is state owned. When he leaves he cant take the wallpaper with him.
Quite. Or will the dog andf/or baby do 28K worth of damage that has to be allowed for in advance, so to speak? (I'm deducting the 30K allowance, obvs, but that is yearly - though he won't be able to claim retrospectively from future years, I assume.)
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 think that's true (I noted your earlier post saying there was little change since 2019, but that was also with Boris Johnson). But supposedly there are lots of people, especially working-class voters, who only vote Tory because they like him, and who might find Sunak too smooth. There are also floating voters who aren't usually right-wing but like Johnson's unpredictability, since they feel that he might as a populist do something helpful that they wouldn't have expected (Trump used to get votes from that group). I'm not sure it's obvious where the balance of advantage lies.
Boris gone would certainly help in Scotland. Maybe not in Northern England. A quandary for Tories.
Only if not replaced by Mr Gove (who is, somewhat to my surprise, even less popular in Scotland IIRC).
That's true. Gove should have held on to his Aberdonian accent. Rishi, I think, would do pretty well up here.
Or Abrdnn accnt as it is now known, I gather. But the natives would not understand the right Doric down south.
Aye. Talking about loons and quines might have caused some misapprehensions.
It's always fun seeing names from England and Wales on lists like that.
Many of those are people who I imagine want to see all four nations back in the EU but are so caught up by Strasbourg Syndrome and "sticking one to the English" that they can't see that their support for indy would likely create a permanent stay out majority in the remaining three nations, hence locking themselves out of EU citizenship.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
That's fine. Just take away full diplomatic status from each of the EU nations at the same time.
After all, we don't have separate diplomatic status with Alabama.
Is that what they want? Or do they want cake, eat cake?
That is just petty. Do you think we should also remove our ambassadors from every EU country as well in return? Or maybe it is just a good thing to have diplomatic ties with both the countries and the EU.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
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 think that's true (I noted your earlier post saying there was little change since 2019, but that was also with Boris Johnson). But supposedly there are lots of people, especially working-class voters, who only vote Tory because they like him, and who might find Sunak too smooth. There are also floating voters who aren't usually right-wing but like Johnson's unpredictability, since they feel that he might as a populist do something helpful that they wouldn't have expected (Trump used to get votes from that group). I'm not sure it's obvious where the balance of advantage lies.
Boris gone would certainly help in Scotland. Maybe not in Northern England. A quandary for Tories.
Only if not replaced by Mr Gove (who is, somewhat to my surprise, even less popular in Scotland IIRC).
That's true. Gove should have held on to his Aberdonian accent. Rishi, I think, would do pretty well up here.
Or Abrdnn accnt as it is now known, I gather. But the natives would not understand the right Doric down south.
Aye. Talking about loons and quines might have caused some misapprehensions.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
It's always fun seeing names from England and Wales on lists like that.
Many of those are people who I imagine want to see all four nations back in the EU but are so caught up by Strasbourg Syndrome and "sticking one to the English" that they can't see that their support would likely create a permanent stay out majority in the remaining three nations, hence locking themselves out of EU citizenship.
Each to their own....
Usual list of "right on" suspects.
This one caught my eye:
Jackie Kay – Scots Makar, the national poet laureate of Scotland – Manchester, England
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
No it isn't. Which is why the "John Lewis nightmare" comment, if true is a bit snobbish. JL are good enough for very many people in the country and seen as aspirational for many others. And, frankly, when you are only in the place for a short while, have a dog and a baby on the way, spending money on expensive furnishings is bloody daft.
£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly.
The only issue here is if there has been a breach of the rules on donations and/or some quid pro quo. If I had to guess I would plump for the former rather than the latter. The reason it is a story at all is because the PM has been too high handed to provide an explanation when first asked so it looks as if he's got something to hide when the truth may be less sensational than it seems.
"£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly" Maybe the previous occupants had really let it go?
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 didn't cost you nothing though did it? It cost you the full £30K allowance still, so as least as much as every other PM and possibly more, in addition to all this other stuff that every previous PM managed to avoid doing.
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 think that’s a pretty good point. And he might just succeed, as the policies themselves, shorn of their party labels, are favoured by around two thirds of the US electorate.
If the spending bill does get through Congress, I think the Democrats will do very well indeed in the midterms - which is one reason the Republicans are determined to stop it.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
Quite so.
Four thoughts re this discussion as a whole -
1. Anyone who has been to boarding school can live almost anywhere 2. Mr Johnson et famille also have Chequers. 3. The fuss appears to be about the private flat - not the official rooms - so entertaining official guests is irrelevant. IT's basically a glorified caretaker's flat. 4. 58K on decor and furniture for a flat with a small baby and a reportedly scratchy dog?!?
Yes, if it was your own flat you would risk luxury gold wallpaper with a toddler and a dog
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
No it isn't. Which is why the "John Lewis nightmare" comment, if true is a bit snobbish. JL are good enough for very many people in the country and seen as aspirational for many others. And, frankly, when you are only in the place for a short while, have a dog and a baby on the way, spending money on expensive furnishings is bloody daft.
£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly.
The only issue here is if there has been a breach of the rules on donations and/or some quid pro quo. If I had to guess I would plump for the former rather than the latter. The reason it is a story at all is because the PM has been too high handed to provide an explanation when first asked so it looks as if he's got something to hide when the truth may be less sensational than it seems.
"£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly" Maybe the previous occupants had really let it go?
It's quite funny that in the real world there are small flats for sale for £33,000.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
John Lewis is facing the same problems many retailers are - its neither cheap and cheerful nor high quality and unique.
Its likely to face the long decline Debenhams and House of Frasers did.
Lucky Scots if they do! I'd much prefer to be part of the EU than the UK particularly if this rancid Tory Government are going to be around for long
Hell will freeze over before the Spanish Govt agrees to that. There really is no understanding of how the EU works with this lot. They should go and speak to some Greeks.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
The problem with Downing Street that it really isn't big enough or good enough for a family orientated PM and his family to live in.
Add in the factor it is a Grade 1 listed building means there's limited things you can do to it.
There's a reason the Camerons paid so much out of their own pocket to do it up.
I've been to Downing Street on a few occasions (but not since 2016 for some reason) and every time I went there I saw mice.
High point was Larry seeing a mouse, then yawning and rolling over on his belly, Official Chief Mouser? Official Slacker more like.
Why do you have the collaborator Pétain as your avatar by the way?
I would call him a Quisling, but that would be confusing given the circumstances...
I've always found Pétain a reminder to myself that
1) Reputations tumble very quickly, from the Lion of Verdun to the most hated man in France. No matter how much good you do in life, you're often only remembered for your last/worst act(s).
2) Sometimes good people are faced with an impossible decision, that there are no good options, only the least worst options, such as him telling France to surrender and becoming the Chief of State.
3) He went back to France to face justice, he could have disappeared into the night or committed suicide. Takes balls that.
It explains why you can't understand most of what goes on here.
I understand there are some rather thick right-wing loonies here who really can't stand anyone disagreeing with them.
Almost worthy of classification as "True-Blue Snowflakes".
Your pretty insecure aren't you.
If you're going to insult people at least try to get you're [sic] grammar right. Otherwise they may get the impression that an expensive education isn't all its [sic] cracked up to be.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
It would not surprised me if he didn't know. He should know, but he probably doesn't.
Lucky Scots if they do! I'd much prefer to be part of the EU than the UK particularly if this rancid Tory Government are going to be around for long
Seems to be a bit of 'the EU should make a special case for us' wishful thinking going on there, of exactly the sort that Remainers have tended to accuse the more optimistic Leavers of.
The EU as an institution may or may not make a special case for Scotland, but it is impossible to be sure because it is slow-witted, sclerotic and incapable of acting in its own interests.
Individual nation states are unlikely to want to make a special case for Scotland because Cataluna, Corsica, South Tyrol, etc.
Idiotic line from the vaccines minister - "If the vaccines have 85% efficacy and we vaccinate fully 85% of the adult population, that is still only 72% protection"
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
Agreed. And even if the minister’s figures were correct, his calculation of ‘protection’ is nonsense. I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
It explains why you can't understand most of what goes on here.
I understand there are some rather thick right-wing loonies here who really can't stand anyone disagreeing with them.
Almost worthy of classification as "True-Blue Snowflakes".
Your pretty insecure aren't you.
If you're going to insult people at least try to get you're [sic] grammar right. Otherwise they may get the impression that an expensive education isn't all its [sic] cracked up to be.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
My theory: Dyson paid for the wallpaper, on condition the taxpayer would stump up for a couple of vacuum cleaners. And perhaps a ventilator or two, in case Boris nearly died of COVID-19 again.
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?
Tbh all the figures look a bit high. Do they burn the flat's contents each year and start again from scratch? Does each new Prime Minister move into an empty shell that needs to be furnished from scratch?
Exactly, which is why the fact that this refurb has not been at the taxpayers expense is surely a good thing. But in this pandemic world lets make a scandal out of the fact that a PM paid for the refurbishment of his state owned flat himself rather than charge the taxpayer.
Except we think Boris *did* charge the taxpayer right up to the £30,000 annual limit. This row is about who paid the excess.
He said in Parliament yesterday that he paid for it all.
Of course he said he paid for it. But who put the money into his pocket to enable him to pay for it out of his own pocket?
Can you really be as stupid as you appear? (Sorry if that's offensive, I didn't have time to get it approved into inoffensive baby talk by the BoJo loyalists.)
Say what you like Chris, don't take any notice (re yesterday).
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
It explains why you can't understand most of what goes on here.
I understand there are some rather thick right-wing loonies here who really can't stand anyone disagreeing with them.
Almost worthy of classification as "True-Blue Snowflakes".
Your pretty insecure aren't you.
If you're going to insult people at least try to get you're [sic] grammar right. Otherwise they may get the impression that an expensive education isn't all its [sic] cracked up to be.
QED
Yes. Stick to acronyms and you can't go far wrong. But still take care about apostrophes.
Disastrous poll for Sturgeon, she is now facing May 2017 style humiliation, moving from polls last year showing an SNP landslide to polls now showing not only no SNP majority but the SNP even losing seats
The problem with Downing Street that it really isn't big enough or good enough for a family orientated PM and his family to live in.
Add in the factor it is a Grade 1 listed building means there's limited things you can do to it.
There's a reason the Camerons paid so much out of their own pocket to do it up.
I've been to Downing Street on a few occasions (but not since 2016 for some reason) and every time I went there I saw mice.
High point was Larry seeing a mouse, then yawning and rolling over on his belly, Official Chief Mouser? Official Slacker more like.
I was having dinner at The Russel Hotel just off Oxford Street when a mouse ran across the floor. I called the waiter over and told him what I'd just seen. He said 'Did you see which way it went?' I pointed to it's direction of travel "I don't think we'll find it but if you see another one let one of the waiters know and we'll chase it out.
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
Regarding the latest Scottish poll I wonder if the bump for SLab will simply lead to a small seat exchange between them and the SCons - while leaving the SNP sitting pretty. I think this is a real danger.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
Given the number of John Lewis shops being closed it seems the public have an increasing disdain for the brand.
I think that's nonsense. I use John Lewis whenever I can. JL is suffering because it cannot and will not price match against online platforms. The Govt needs to level the playing field.
In addition to the online thing, JL is suffering because of lockdown. JL is an excellent store to be sure but that doesn't mean it can always provide what a listed building deserves. Bespoke=our national heritage assets.
The problem with Downing Street that it really isn't big enough or good enough for a family orientated PM and his family to live in.
Add in the factor it is a Grade 1 listed building means there's limited things you can do to it.
There's a reason the Camerons paid so much out of their own pocket to do it up.
I've been to Downing Street on a few occasions (but not since 2016 for some reason) and every time I went there I saw mice.
High point was Larry seeing a mouse, then yawning and rolling over on his belly, Official Chief Mouser? Official Slacker more like.
Why do you have the collaborator Pétain as your avatar by the way?
I would call him a Quisling, but that would be confusing given the circumstances...
I've always found Pétain a reminder to myself that
1) Reputations tumble very quickly, from the Lion of Verdun to the most hated man in France. No matter how much good you do in life, you're often only remembered for your last/worst act(s).
2) Sometimes good people are faced with an impossible decision, that there are no good options, only the least worst options, such as him telling France to surrender and becoming the Chief of State.
3) He went back to France to face justice, he could have disappeared into the night or committed suicide. Takes balls that.
To some extent, that goes for all our personal business reputations as well.
We're only as good as our last job, and how we did it is just as important too.
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.
It is a bit odd that so much is being made of something which ought to be straightforward to answer and where we have most of the information already.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat. - What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance. - He did not want to pay for it himself. - The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it. - The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this. - For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself. - Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
I've looked at the cost of stuff in John Lewis...it's not cheap.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
Quite so.
Four thoughts re this discussion as a whole -
1. Anyone who has been to boarding school can live almost anywhere 2. Mr Johnson et famille also have Chequers. 3. The fuss appears to be about the private flat - not the official rooms - so entertaining official guests is irrelevant. IT's basically a glorified caretaker's flat. 4. 58K on decor and furniture for a flat with a small baby and a reportedly scratchy dog?!?
Yes, if it was your own flat you would risk luxury gold wallpaper with a toddler and a dog
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
My theory: Dyson paid for the wallpaper, on condition the taxpayer would stump up for a couple of vacuum cleaners. And perhaps a ventilator or two, in case Boris nearly died of COVID-19 again.
So Henry paid for the No 10 TV Studio - makes sense
Like most things Boris Johnson kicks up a stink with the EU then eventually agrees to what the EU asked him to do, and squanders whatever good will was left.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
Comments
@DPJHodges
·
45m
Can Ministers answer this. They keep saying there are a number of inquiries underway into the No.10 flat. But why do we need an inquiry. The Prime Minister knows who initially paid for his wallpaper. All he needs to do is tell us who it was. So why won't he. What's the reason.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-03-12/hl14191
Tbh all the figures look a bit high. Do they burn the flat's contents each year and start again from scratch? Does each new Prime Minister move into an empty shell that needs to be furnished from scratch?
PMQs was interesting yesterday. For the last year, the PM has used PMQs to not answer Starmer's questions and to take every opportunity to tell the country that he is focused on "the people's priorities" and paint a positive vision. Starmer has sat there looking rather cross.
Yesterday, it was the reverse. The PM still chose not to answer the questions, but in the end got very cross and went on a slightly intemperate rant. When the camera panned to Starmer, he looked rather pleased with himself and had a bit of a smirk on his face. I think he thought he'd at last caused the PM significant discomfort.
- The PM wanted to refurbish the flat.
- What he and his girlfriend wanted done cost more than the £30k allowance.
- He did not want to pay for it himself.
- The idea of having a trust to pay for this similar to what there is in the US was put forward with people able to contribute to it.
- The Tory party and/or Tory donors started paying money towards this.
- For whatever reasons the trust idea got stopped, at which point the PM realised or was told that he'd have to cover the costs himself.
- Possibly various rules about donations etc have not been followed.
If this is correct, why not say so?
It might be very bad if, say, the money was given by a donor in return for or in the expectation of a favour from the PM. There might also be breaches of rules on donations.
But the 2 most damaging aspects (relatively speaking) are (a) the snobbish disdain for John Lewis, its customers and staff; and (b) the fact that all this was going on last February when the pandemic was raging and the PM was seemingly more concerned about his divorce and interior decorations. Delays in decisions then cost lives and jobs. We know this already though.
My feeling is that this is a bit of a hoo ha which will reinforce rather than change views. It does seem an avoidable mistake. Why the PM's office has been unable to get a grip of this story is perhaps more interesting.
If an anonymous donor pays for refurbishment of the Prime Minister's flat then the Prime Minister is beholden to that anonymous donor.
That's why we need to know who originally paid.
If he had said IKEA I might be agreeing, but John Lewis is the place to go when you want a step up (speaking as someone who's furniture in the house is 95% IKEA).
If his opponents want to take him down they have to produce the tape or recording, or drop it
Let's see over the next few days if the allegations continue or disappear and if they continue demand the evidence
https://europeforscotland.com/list-of-signatories/
We know that fully vaccinated people have over 90% efficacy, for Pfizer it's about 96% and for AZ it's about 91% on our dosing regime. We also know that take up has eventually been over 90% of every group offered it. Additionally we also know that a single dose of either vaccine cuts transmission by between 40% and 50%, studies from the US are even more promising wrt Pfizer. This has a cumulative effect of reducing risks much further.
The government is now backing itself into a corner with the unlockdown schedule and trying to justify whatever measures it wants to keep post June 21st. The vaccines have completely blown their existing plan to pieces, but they still want to stick to it. June 21st should be the end of the pandemic internally in the UK. Every single bit of pandemic rubbish should be dumped, no masks, no plastic screens on shops, no social distancing and no domestic vaccine passports.
John Lewis’s own humorous tweet - saying they have a great range of furniture that would satisfy almost anyone, makes the point perfectly.
Downing Street is concerned that the involvement of a Tory donor in funding Boris Johnson’s flat renovation has left a damaging paper trail at Conservative Party headquarters.
The Electoral Commission launched an investigation yesterday of the party’s role in funding the redecoration of the home that he shares with his fiancée and son above 11 Downing Street.
It said there were “reasonable grounds to suspect” that the law had been broken because of the failure to report donations.
The commission has the power to order any individual — including the prime minister and his fiancée, Carrie Symonds — to hand over text messages, emails and other information considered relevant to the investigation. It can also compel them to attend interviews. If it is denied access to documents, it can secure a warrant to search for them.
Johnson denied yesterday that he had personally breached the rules. His press secretary said he was prepared to give the commission evidence relating to the funding of the work.
However, The Times has been told of concerns within No 10 about Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ).
“The worry is that there could be a paper trail,” a government source said. “There was a very limited number of people who knew about the funding arrangements at CCHQ. It’s not clear how this will end.”
There is also concern in Downing Street that the Electoral Commission will interview Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s former chief adviser, who described the alleged plan for Tory donors to fund the refurbishment as “unethical” and possibly illegal.
In a 1,000-word blog published last week, Cummings said he had told the prime minister that the plans “almost certainly broke the rules” on the disclosure of donations. He said that he would be happy to speak to the commission.
It was claimed last night that Ben Elliot, joint chairman of the Conservative Party, had warned the prime minister in February last year that the alleged plans were “madness”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downing-st-concern-at-paper-trail-over-boris-johnsons-flat-redecoration-qg8vjqj2z
Like Al Capone, I wonder if it the tax that gets Boris Johnson.
Four thoughts re this discussion as a whole -
1. Anyone who has been to boarding school can live almost anywhere
2. Mr Johnson et famille also have Chequers.
3. The fuss appears to be about the private flat - not the official rooms - so entertaining official guests is irrelevant. IT's basically a glorified caretaker's flat.
4. 58K on decor and furniture for a flat with a small baby and a reportedly scratchy dog?!?
May - Brexit Policy
Cameron - Brexit ref loss
Brown - Election and financial crisis
Blair - Iraq?
Major - ERM policy
Thatcher - Poll tax policy
Callaghan - Winter of discontent
Wilson ?
Heath - lost election
Douglas Home - lost election
Macmillan - Profumo / Ill health
So not for over 50 years. British people value competence. The opposition need to tie in sleaze or personal issues to competence before I will see it as significant, and frankly that should be easy. Boris is incompetent but so are the opposition.
Why on earth would the govt not continue the motion?
Keeping us scared makes us easier to rule.
Britain is preparing to grant full diplomatic status to the European Union’s ambassador in London, concluding a dispute that has strained relations between the two sides for the past year.
João Vale de Almeida took up his post as the EU’s first ambassador to London last spring after Britain’s exit from the bloc but was denied formal recognition.
Foreign Office sources said Downing Street’s decision not to grant full credentials had had an “unhealthy, chilling effect” on talks between British diplomats and Brussels, even if Almeida was “not constrained in any way”. News of the change in status came as the EU formally signed off last year’s Brexit trade deal.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-to-formally-recognise-eu-ambassador-for-first-time-since-brexit-63c3xkwgh
Personally I’d be thrilled to have confirmation that Boris was raging against lockdowns and not meekly nodding along to Neil Ferguson and Gove. I asked my MP to no confidence Johnson because I thought he was blind to the harm from lockdowns. Hearing this anecdote makes me like the man again.
After all, we don't have separate diplomatic status with Alabama.
Is that what they want? Or do they want cake, eat cake?
You're a fully paid-up loony too!
That explains a lot ...
F1: Canada's off the calendar, replaced by Turkey.
£30,000 is more than enough to do up a small flat, frankly.
The only issue here is if there has been a breach of the rules on donations and/or some quid pro quo. If I had to guess I would plump for the former rather than the latter. The reason it is a story at all is because the PM has been too high handed to provide an explanation when first asked so it looks as if he's got something to hide when the truth may be less sensational than it seems.
Dates not data is the policy.
The Govt needs to level the playing field.
Add in the factor it is a Grade 1 listed building means there's limited things you can do to it.
There's a reason the Camerons paid so much out of their own pocket to do it up.
I've been to Downing Street on a few occasions (but not since 2016 for some reason) and every time I went there I saw mice.
High point was Larry seeing a mouse, then yawning and rolling over on his belly, Official Chief Mouser? Official Slacker more like.
Can you really be as stupid as you appear? (Sorry if that's offensive, I didn't have time to get it approved into inoffensive baby talk by the BoJo loyalists.)
Many of those are people who I imagine want to see all four nations back in the EU but are so caught up by Strasbourg Syndrome and "sticking one to the English" that they can't see that their support for indy would likely create a permanent stay out majority in the remaining three nations, hence locking themselves out of EU citizenship.
Each to their own....
Really this EU paranoia is just very sad.
Now lets compare with the negotiating strategy of Blair and Cameron.
This one caught my eye:
Jackie Kay – Scots Makar, the national poet laureate of Scotland – Manchester, England
Maybe the previous occupants had really let it go?
I would call him a Quisling, but that would be confusing given the circumstances...
Almost worthy of classification as "True-Blue Snowflakes".
And he might just succeed, as the policies themselves, shorn of their party labels, are favoured by around two thirds of the US electorate.
If the spending bill does get through Congress, I think the Democrats will do very well indeed in the midterms - which is one reason the Republicans are determined to stop it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/29/eu-should-hang-out-welcome-sign-for-independent-scotland-letter-signed-cultural-figures
Lucky Scots if they do! I'd much prefer to be part of the EU than the UK particularly if this rancid Tory Government are going to be around for long
The diplomatic status was always going to be granted, but it was a chip to play to suit our own interests. That's been done.
Its likely to face the long decline Debenhams and House of Frasers did.
The EU were perpetually doing this. Grab something, then within weeks start working on the next issue.
Johnson's deal improved things and set a new baseline, but now its time to start ratcheting on what needs changing next.
1) Reputations tumble very quickly, from the Lion of Verdun to the most hated man in France. No matter how much good you do in life, you're often only remembered for your last/worst act(s).
2) Sometimes good people are faced with an impossible decision, that there are no good options, only the least worst options, such as him telling France to surrender and becoming the Chief of State.
3) He went back to France to face justice, he could have disappeared into the night or committed suicide. Takes balls that.
The EU as an institution may or may not make a special case for Scotland, but it is impossible to be sure because it is slow-witted, sclerotic and incapable of acting in its own interests.
Individual nation states are unlikely to want to make a special case for Scotland because Cataluna, Corsica, South Tyrol, etc.
I’m happy with the current schedule up to June. Assuming vaccinations plans proceed, then there should be little need for anything beyond that other than monitoring of infection levels (particularly into autumn), and plans for booster shots with the second generation vaccines.
I’m going to keep a stock of masks, but that’s just me not liking winter colds.
Bank what you can get then see if you can get more afterwards.
Its the same strategy the EU has been using for decades.
And now we want more...
Unless you mean the final approval of the negotiated deal by the EU Parliament which ought to have been a formality.
No, this is another example of Boris’s “talk bollocks and carry a shit stick” policy.
So we traded one formality for another. No big deal.
Boris was able to use the £30k annual allowance from multiple years, including some historic underspends.
The £58k was the balance which couldn’t be supported by the ordinary budget.
We're only as good as our last job, and how we did it is just as important too.
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1387655839088062464?s=20