Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Size does matter in Hartlepool – politicalbetting.com

135

Comments

  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    There is def

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Quite a lot. If you look at how people voted on the constituency and on the list in edinburgh in 2016 you see Lab and lib Dems come first in Ed southern and Ed west to win the constituencies but the Conservatives come first on the list vote in both constituencies.

    It is why Douglas Ross is emphasising the list vote so much.
  • Options
    contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    The authentic and repellent voice of Toryism today.

    Go away and look up what follows hubris.
    Two months ago I would have agreed with you. I suspect the conservatives election campaign has chastened them somewhat. If you look at the latest table of fave raves on conhome, campaign head Milling is as popular as a f8rt in a space suit.

    And Liz Truss is top.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,948
    Alistair said:

    There is def

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Quite a lot. If you look at how people voted on the constituency and on the list in edinburgh in 2016 you see Lab and lib Dems come first in Ed southern and Ed west to win the constituencies but the Conservatives come first on the list vote in both constituencies.

    It is why Douglas Ross is emphasising the list vote so much.
    Also, however, we have more Britnat parties to choose from should anyone be inclined to try their hand at Unionist tactical voting. It's not obvious to me there is much to choose between ScoTories, Ms Ballantyne's lot, or Mr Galloway's lot, either.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,904


    Cost of redecoration of flat ~ 100k, paid for -- after a bit of fuss -- apparently by the PM. Cost to taxpayers -- zero. Total amount of postings on blogs and words in newspapers ~ billions.

    Cost of mahossive Greensill Capital / Gupta corruption to taxpayers ~ up to 5 billion (source: Guardian). Total amount of postings on blogs and words in newspapers ~ at most a few hundred.

    It is Filthy, Greedy Cameron who should be under the spotlight.

    It is proof that most people are not actually interested in tackling serious fraud or corruption. They are only interested in using corruption as a party political stick.

    Now that Cameron is no longer a front line politician -- and despite his behaviour being massively more expensive for the taxpayer -- no-one is very interested.

    ......and what about Dugdale at Crichel Down? Not a word! They've got it in for Boris
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,018

    Cyclefree said:

    "For a government struggling with the perception that lucrative opportunities are available if you know the right people — rules and merit be damned — not requiring an interrogation of Vennells and her senior colleagues under oath is, to put it lightly, not a great look.

    Sub-postmasters and their families are not calling for an indiscriminate witch-hunt — that, after all, would make them no different from the faceless bureaucracy at the Post Office that pursued them so relentlessly without care for evidence or consequence. But “lessons learnt” without any repercussions for those who necessitated those lessons in the first place is not justice; it is absolution. We need a full, statutory inquiry, empowered by the state to hear all pertinent evidence and testimony."


    From this harrowing article on the human cost of the Post Office Horizon scandal - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-justice-was-delivered-too-late-for-my-uncle-q6q0tk8zs.

    We have a full inquiry into Grenfell, and I don't think there's much difference as far as 'lives ruined' are concerned.
    Even if a number of middle rank Post Office staff are convicted of perjury, that still doesn't absolve the people at the top who must have had questions.
    Grenfell was horrific -and being less than two miles away from where I live, I’ve some sense of its continued impact on people. However, far more lives have been ruined by the PO prosecutions.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,948

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    The authentic and repellent voice of Toryism today.

    Go away and look up what follows hubris.
    Two months ago I would have agreed with you. I suspect the conservatives election campaign has chastened them somewhat. If you look at the latest table of fave raves on conhome, campaign head Milling is as popular as a f8rt in a space suit.

    And Liz Truss is top.
    Of the like or hate list?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,170
    edited May 2021
    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Some fascinating detail in this, including the bafflingly surreal one that, while Scottish voters think the SNP Scottish Government has done badly on education, they think it has done well on immigration and defence.

    Could someone please have a stern word with Scottish voters?


    https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1388747777031692290?s=20

    Maybe people give the SNP a plus on defence because they like the policies even if they don't have the powers? Which is worrying because it suggests what the SNP is good at requires independence.
    That could well be the case

    Have we all done our predictions on here for e Scottish elections yet? I still think SNP will fall short of a majority, but will be very tight.
    I think SLAB will be in second place in the popular vote, and possibly seats. Voting SLAB is the way to kick both Sturgeon and Johnson in the arse.
    ScotCons are on for losing seats. Last night the Lord of Epping Forest insisted they help no seats in NE fishing towns - because their 4 MSPs here are only list members. With polls showing them losing somewhere round that number of seats, I think HYUFD's prediction is likely accurate - Tories are going to be punished up here for lying to the community.
    They are only list seats, not one major fishing community in Scotland has a Conservative constituency MSP. However I think the Conservatives could gain Moray from the SNP, it was 49% Leave, has Ross as its Westminster MP and no major fishing port unlike its neighbour Banffshire and Buchan Coast
    If they are "only list seats" then you will be happy to lose them. You keep saying these list MSPs don't represent the fishing area. When I put my details into They Work For You it states - amazingly enough - that I have a stack of MSPs representing me including these 4 Tories:

    Your MP (Member of Parliament) is David Duguid, Banff and Buchan
    Your constituency MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) is Gillian Martin, Aberdeenshire East
    Your North East Scotland MSPs are:
    Peter Chapman
    Liam Kerr
    Lewis Macdonald
    Jenny Marra
    Mike Rumbles
    Bill Bowman
    Tom Mason

    You really are a clueless fool.
    Not one represents a Holyrood fishing constituency of any size, every resident of Scotland has a Tory MSP on the list, Banffshire and Buchan coast which is where the largest fishing ports in Scotland are has an SNP constituency MSP, the second largest fishing ports around Orkney and Shetland have LD constituency MSPs.

    So yet again a completely irrelevant point from you
    So do these MSPs represent me or not? The Scottish Parliament says Yes.. You say No.

    Who is right? You? Or the Scottish parliament?
    Panelbase today has the Tories holding all 4 of their North East list seats anyway.

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388641177226944515?s=20
    What do you care? These Tory MSPs don't exist according to you.
    The real point HY doesn't understand is that fishing - and to a much lesser extent farming - has a symbolic importance beyond just the number of people working in it, which objectively is tiny. An odd point to miss, for anyone who has been paying attention.

    The fisherfolk down these parts would love to meet the likes of our Philip for a little chat, so that he could explain to them in person his proposition that 'shit happens'.
    TBF, the fishing industry is also important because Food Security.

    I was wondering how HYUFD would react to the recent polling - after his assurances that the ScoTories would be sswept to triumph by the voting of the fishing industry (which he based on a single survey by a non BPC actor, an academic, of self-selected skippers of larger fishing boats).
    I have not said that at all all year, the Tories would only have gained fishing votes with No Deal Brexit and all UK waters only for UK fishermen.

    However No Deal would have cost them more suburban votes in Scotland and seats like Eastwood and Edinburgh Central than they would have gained from fishermen, the only seat they may have gained from the SNP from the fishing vote was Banffshire and Buchan Coast
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Dura_Ace said:

    Foxy said:



    Additionally, there is no problem with Ms Symmonds getting a job if she wants to decorate the flat at one go, rather than do a few rooms at a time.

    She has one as Head of Something Or Other at an animal charity. Presumably her nightly exposure to Johnson on the vinegars was good preparation for working with gorillas.
    No she doesn't - I do know about the animal welfare sector. She's a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which is literally just lending her name to a voluntary campaign group (the counterpart to the Labour Animal Welfare Society), at a salary of £0.

    As I said yesterday, the attempt to have a go at Johnson's partner as a proxy for attacking him is dodgy and has an element of misogyny. She's keen on animals, but to be fair he has quite a good record on the issue too (as I expect we shall see on Tuesday week in the Queen's Speech). Others may disagree, but if so they should criticise Johnson. not his partner who happens to be of similar mind on this.
    For a while, wasn't Cherie Blair the most unpopular person in the country, according to polls? In the aftermath of a different Flat-gate.

    It is a curious form of British misogyny, I tend to agree.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,205
    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,587
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,071
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,948
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Foxy said:

    Some fascinating detail in this, including the bafflingly surreal one that, while Scottish voters think the SNP Scottish Government has done badly on education, they think it has done well on immigration and defence.

    Could someone please have a stern word with Scottish voters?


    https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1388747777031692290?s=20

    Maybe people give the SNP a plus on defence because they like the policies even if they don't have the powers? Which is worrying because it suggests what the SNP is good at requires independence.
    That could well be the case

    Have we all done our predictions on here for e Scottish elections yet? I still think SNP will fall short of a majority, but will be very tight.
    I think SLAB will be in second place in the popular vote, and possibly seats. Voting SLAB is the way to kick both Sturgeon and Johnson in the arse.
    ScotCons are on for losing seats. Last night the Lord of Epping Forest insisted they help no seats in NE fishing towns - because their 4 MSPs here are only list members. With polls showing them losing somewhere round that number of seats, I think HYUFD's prediction is likely accurate - Tories are going to be punished up here for lying to the community.
    They are only list seats, not one major fishing community in Scotland has a Conservative constituency MSP. However I think the Conservatives could gain Moray from the SNP, it was 49% Leave, has Ross as its Westminster MP and no major fishing port unlike its neighbour Banffshire and Buchan Coast
    If they are "only list seats" then you will be happy to lose them. You keep saying these list MSPs don't represent the fishing area. When I put my details into They Work For You it states - amazingly enough - that I have a stack of MSPs representing me including these 4 Tories:

    Your MP (Member of Parliament) is David Duguid, Banff and Buchan
    Your constituency MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) is Gillian Martin, Aberdeenshire East
    Your North East Scotland MSPs are:
    Peter Chapman
    Liam Kerr
    Lewis Macdonald
    Jenny Marra
    Mike Rumbles
    Bill Bowman
    Tom Mason

    You really are a clueless fool.
    Not one represents a Holyrood fishing constituency of any size, every resident of Scotland has a Tory MSP on the list, Banffshire and Buchan coast which is where the largest fishing ports in Scotland are has an SNP constituency MSP, the second largest fishing ports around Orkney and Shetland have LD constituency MSPs.

    So yet again a completely irrelevant point from you
    So do these MSPs represent me or not? The Scottish Parliament says Yes.. You say No.

    Who is right? You? Or the Scottish parliament?
    Panelbase today has the Tories holding all 4 of their North East list seats anyway.

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388641177226944515?s=20
    What do you care? These Tory MSPs don't exist according to you.
    The real point HY doesn't understand is that fishing - and to a much lesser extent farming - has a symbolic importance beyond just the number of people working in it, which objectively is tiny. An odd point to miss, for anyone who has been paying attention.

    The fisherfolk down these parts would love to meet the likes of our Philip for a little chat, so that he could explain to them in person his proposition that 'shit happens'.
    TBF, the fishing industry is also important because Food Security.

    I was wondering how HYUFD would react to the recent polling - after his assurances that the ScoTories would be sswept to triumph by the voting of the fishing industry (which he based on a single survey by a non BPC actor, an academic, of self-selected skippers of larger fishing boats).
    I have not said that at all all year, the Tories would only have gained fishing votes with No Deal Brexit and all UK waters only for UK fishermen.

    However No Deal would have cost them more suburban votes in Scotland and seats like Eastwood and Edinburgh Central than they would have gained from fishermen, the only seat they may have gained from the SNP from the fishing vote was Banffshire and Buchan Coast
    But our argument about your misinterpretation opf that survey was more than a year ago.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,948

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Mr Murray in Edinburgh South, I would think - he is always urging Tories to vote for him.

    BTW I wonder what effect having the students disrupted by Covid will have on the vote - could affect LDs in Edinburgh and Fife/St Andrews maybe?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,071

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Dealt with in a crossover. Thanks folks. The Edinburgh examples are particularly interesting.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,170

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Clackmannanshire East

    The Tories were up 9.7% and Labour were down 12.1% and the LDs were down 1.4% so the Tories won even with the SNP up 1.8%
    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1329576355068080130?s=20
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,170
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Mr Murray in Edinburgh South, I would think - he is always urging Tories to vote for him.

    BTW I wonder what effect having the students disrupted by Covid will have on the vote - could affect LDs in Edinburgh and Fife/St Andrews maybe?
    Yes, Labour will hold Edinburgh Southern and maybe Dumbarton and East Lothian too on Thursday due to Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP
  • Options
    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1388785998683836418

    Labour going to make real progress into 2024, in Scotland, IMHO.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,018
    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    And that’s a 180 from Rayner!
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,557
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Mr Murray in Edinburgh South, I would think - he is always urging Tories to vote for him.

    BTW I wonder what effect having the students disrupted by Covid will have on the vote - could affect LDs in Edinburgh and Fife/St Andrews maybe?
    Yes, Labour will hold Edinburgh Southern and maybe Dumbarton and East Lothian too on Thursday due to Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP
    HYUFD - what’s your overall prediction for Scotland?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,345
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    You could precis that down to four words, **** off everyone else!
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,568
    Scott_xP said:

    Sandpit said:

    It’s sad that so many of the Commentariat seem to be gleefully talking up the dissolution of the country, purely as a means to get back at Johnson and Brexit.

    It's really sad that the breakup of the United Kingdom is an inevitable consequence of Brexit

    Little Englanders for the win...
    Limiting what we can see of embedded Tweets has really improved your posting output. I agree with barely anything you write, but it's great to see you making an active contribution to the debate as yourself.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,393

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,557

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1388785998683836418

    Labour going to make real progress into 2024, in Scotland, IMHO.

    Based on that poll?! They’re up 0.5 points
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,557
    edited May 2021

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    All depends how much he wants to keep the job (despite the lack of cash)

    I don’t know why he doesn’t do a deal now for his memoirs. Is it illegal? It would certainly look a lot better than asking for donors to pay his childcare

    As we discussed last night he will get millions. Problem solved. Unless it’s not allowed
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Cyclefree said:

    "For a government struggling with the perception that lucrative opportunities are available if you know the right people — rules and merit be damned — not requiring an interrogation of Vennells and her senior colleagues under oath is, to put it lightly, not a great look.

    Sub-postmasters and their families are not calling for an indiscriminate witch-hunt — that, after all, would make them no different from the faceless bureaucracy at the Post Office that pursued them so relentlessly without care for evidence or consequence. But “lessons learnt” without any repercussions for those who necessitated those lessons in the first place is not justice; it is absolution. We need a full, statutory inquiry, empowered by the state to hear all pertinent evidence and testimony."


    From this harrowing article on the human cost of the Post Office Horizon scandal - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-justice-was-delivered-too-late-for-my-uncle-q6q0tk8zs.

    We have a full inquiry into Grenfell, and I don't think there's much difference as far as 'lives ruined' are concerned.
    Even if a number of middle rank Post Office staff are convicted of perjury, that still doesn't absolve the people at the top who must have had questions.
    But, did they perjure themselves? They were assured that the software was working. They believed the assurances. They lacked the competence to detect software errors.

    They were gullible. They were stupid. But, these are not crimes.

    Vennells was clearly over-promoted -- though she was lauded at the time as a successful working-class woman leading an important company. She was gullible. She was stupid. These are not crimes.

    Any public inquiry will conclude that no crimes were committed by the Post Office and its management. Gross incompetence is not a crime.

    I am puzzled as to why the buckets of shit are not being poured over the software compare (Fujitsu) that supplied the crappy software that made the errors.

    They are more to blame that the wretched Vennells. They supplied the product that caused the problems, and they repeatedly assured Vennells and the Post Office that there was no problem.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,170
    edited May 2021
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Mr Murray in Edinburgh South, I would think - he is always urging Tories to vote for him.

    BTW I wonder what effect having the students disrupted by Covid will have on the vote - could affect LDs in Edinburgh and Fife/St Andrews maybe?
    Yes, Labour will hold Edinburgh Southern and maybe Dumbarton and East Lothian too on Thursday due to Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP
    HYUFD - what’s your overall prediction for Scotland?
    The SNP largest party but no majority on their own but only with the Greens so no change from 2016.

    The SNP will also lose seats on the list to the Greens and at the constituency level I think the SNP will lose Moray to the Tories and Caithness, Sutherland and Ross to the LDs and Edinburgh Central will go Labour, not SNP as well
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,287
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Simon Jenkins: By the end of next week, the bizarre “union of four nations”, much cited during Covid, could be seriously at risk. As throughout history, England is hopeless at managing such risks. Boris Johnson seized power by championing British nationalism, yet he has only contempt for the nationalism of others. Last November Johnson called granting more power to Scotland “a disaster”, declaring devolution to be “Tony Blair’s biggest mistake”. That may soon be another quote he will deny ever having said.

    It’s sad that so many of the Commentariat seem to be gleefully talking up the dissolution of the country, purely as a means to get back at Johnson and Brexit.
    I’m not, but it is a nice bonus.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,018
    I wouldn’t be surprised if urgent trade business does, after all, require Johnson’s presence in India by noon on Wednesday.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,393
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    All depends how much he wants to keep the job (despite the lack of cash)

    I don’t know why he doesn’t do a deal now for his memoirs. Is it illegal? It would certainly look a lot better than asking for donors to pay his childcare

    As we discussed last night he will get millions. Problem solved. Unless it’s not allowed
    He will make a fortune out of office and if he goes once covid is contained, hopefully by mid summer, he will have achieved Brexit and a world class vaccine programme enabling our economy to open sooner than many others
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,557
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Mr Murray in Edinburgh South, I would think - he is always urging Tories to vote for him.

    BTW I wonder what effect having the students disrupted by Covid will have on the vote - could affect LDs in Edinburgh and Fife/St Andrews maybe?
    Yes, Labour will hold Edinburgh Southern and maybe Dumbarton and East Lothian too on Thursday due to Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP
    HYUFD - what’s your overall prediction for Scotland?
    The SNP largest party but no majority on their own but only with the Greens so no change from 2016.

    The SNP will also lose seats on the list to the Greens and at the constituency level I think the SNP will lose Moray to the Tories and Caithness, Sutherland and Ross to the LDs and Edinburgh Central will go Labour, not SNP as well
    Thanks v much. You’re an honest judge, and well-informed, you don’t let your Toryness blind you. Useful
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,672
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,018
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    All depends how much he wants to keep the job (despite the lack of cash)

    I don’t know why he doesn’t do a deal now for his memoirs. Is it illegal? It would certainly look a lot better than asking for donors to pay his childcare

    As we discussed last night he will get millions. Problem solved. Unless it’s not allowed
    Hasn’t he already trousered a significant advance on the Shakespeare book?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,362
    Dura_Ace said:

    AlistairM said:


    I think there is a reasonable likelihood that Boris will step down after the country opens up again. Claim to be the PM who led the vaccine programme and start on the newly re-opened speech circuit making millions.

    He has just procured and had painted (at vast expense and with taxpayers' money) a VVIP A321 - not to be confused with VIP A330 and its million quid paint job. There is zero chance he (and FLOTUK) are going to relinquish the post-covid junkets in that to the Goldman-Sachs Elf and his Mrs any time soon.
    I agree. Giving up PM to ponce around on the speech circuit and write memoirs? No. Johnson won't go unless he has to. Health. Polling collapse. Criminal charges. GE defeat.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,028
    edited May 2021

    Cyclefree said:

    "For a government struggling with the perception that lucrative opportunities are available if you know the right people — rules and merit be damned — not requiring an interrogation of Vennells and her senior colleagues under oath is, to put it lightly, not a great look.

    Sub-postmasters and their families are not calling for an indiscriminate witch-hunt — that, after all, would make them no different from the faceless bureaucracy at the Post Office that pursued them so relentlessly without care for evidence or consequence. But “lessons learnt” without any repercussions for those who necessitated those lessons in the first place is not justice; it is absolution. We need a full, statutory inquiry, empowered by the state to hear all pertinent evidence and testimony."


    From this harrowing article on the human cost of the Post Office Horizon scandal - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-justice-was-delivered-too-late-for-my-uncle-q6q0tk8zs.

    We have a full inquiry into Grenfell, and I don't think there's much difference as far as 'lives ruined' are concerned.
    Even if a number of middle rank Post Office staff are convicted of perjury, that still doesn't absolve the people at the top who must have had questions.
    But, did they perjure themselves? They were assured that the software was working. They believed the assurances. They lacked the competence to detect software errors.

    They were gullible. They were stupid. But, these are not crimes.

    Vennells was clearly over-promoted -- though she was lauded at the time as a successful working-class woman leading an important company. She was gullible. She was stupid. These are not crimes.

    Any public inquiry will conclude that no crimes were committed by the Post Office and its management. Gross incompetence is not a crime.

    I am puzzled as to why the buckets of shit are not being poured over the software compare (Fujitsu) that supplied the crappy software that made the errors.

    They are more to blame that the wretched Vennells. They supplied the product that caused the problems, and they repeatedly assured Vennells and the Post Office that there was no problem.
    Read the emails Vennells sent- she was not asking for issues with the software to be highlighted but to hidden from her.

    As for Fujitsu - anyone decent in IT wouldn't go near them - why do you think they have so much Government work, the private sector offloaded / offshored it 15 years ago to Wipro and TCS
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,287
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Simon Jenkins: By the end of next week, the bizarre “union of four nations”, much cited during Covid, could be seriously at risk. As throughout history, England is hopeless at managing such risks. Boris Johnson seized power by championing British nationalism, yet he has only contempt for the nationalism of others. Last November Johnson called granting more power to Scotland “a disaster”, declaring devolution to be “Tony Blair’s biggest mistake”. That may soon be another quote he will deny ever having said.

    It’s sad that so many of the Commentariat seem to be gleefully talking up the dissolution of the country, purely as a means to get back at Johnson and Brexit.
    I wonder whether Johnson might go for repeal of the Scottish Parliament Act.
    I’m not quite sure he goes that far, but a wide-ranging constitutional convention is long overdue. The current asymmetric devolution arrangement, with no English Parliament, isn’t working.
    ‘We will address the unhappiness of Scottish voters by giving English voters devolution that they show no sign of wanting.
    Trebles all round!’
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,557
    edited May 2021
    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    AlistairM said:


    I think there is a reasonable likelihood that Boris will step down after the country opens up again. Claim to be the PM who led the vaccine programme and start on the newly re-opened speech circuit making millions.

    He has just procured and had painted (at vast expense and with taxpayers' money) a VVIP A321 - not to be confused with VIP A330 and its million quid paint job. There is zero chance he (and FLOTUK) are going to relinquish the post-covid junkets in that to the Goldman-Sachs Elf and his Mrs any time soon.
    I agree. Giving up PM to ponce around on the speech circuit and write memoirs? No. Johnson won't go unless he has to. Health. Polling collapse. Criminal charges. GE defeat.
    Yes. Possibly true

    And while the present rumours look bad for him, remember what Sturgeon has survived. British politics is quite forgiving
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,568


    Cost of redecoration of flat ~ 100k, paid for -- after a bit of fuss -- apparently by the PM. Cost to taxpayers -- zero. Total amount of postings on blogs and words in newspapers ~ billions.

    Cost of mahossive Greensill Capital / Gupta corruption to taxpayers ~ up to 5 billion (source: Guardian). Total amount of postings on blogs and words in newspapers ~ at most a few hundred.

    It is Filthy, Greedy Cameron who should be under the spotlight.

    It is proof that most people are not actually interested in tackling serious fraud or corruption. They are only interested in using corruption as a party political stick.

    Now that Cameron is no longer a front line politician -- and despite his behaviour being massively more expensive for the taxpayer -- no-one is very interested.

    Your defence of Johnson and condemnation of Cameron is fascinating. I am old enough to remember political scandals going back to Polson, T. Dan Smith and of course closer to home Graham Jenkins. Scoundrels with both red and blue stripes. I call them all out.

    The Cameron/ Greensill affair stinks to high heaven, and the pong seems to be circling Downing Street. From what we have heard of Greensill so far, Johnson seems to have avoided it which is great, and Cameron is a busted flush anyway, so nothing to see until the inquiry and/or court cases tell us more. Any allegations of Greensill impropriety amongst Ministers counld and should be dealt with today by Johnson.

    So what of the wallpaper? I, like you, up until last night thought there was nothing to see. Fifty grand on curtains? My wife could manage that, if only I had it, and Carrie's chap just saved 67m people from imminent death, so what's the fuss? However TSE's revelations regarding donors paying contractors directly adds a new and very alarming dimension to the case. Johnson can survive the tasteless wallpaper, but should he survive the deceipt and rulebreaking?

    Excepting that cell in The Hague with Blair's name on it, we don't want to see serving and former Prime Ministers in handcuffs (this is not France). But a life of charitable recantation, a la John Profumo, might be called for, and for both Cameron and Johnson.
    I don't think it is just Cameron and Johnson. Theresa May is getting £20,000 speaking gigs and I am afraid I refuse to believe that they have nothing to do with decisions she took whilst in power. Of course, with May it hasn't been done to excess, whereas Johnson and Cameron, in their different ways, have shat the bed. I am not sure what Brown was like, but I suspect Blair was at it, and possibly that nice Mr. Major too. With Thatcher, I believe Dennis was already wealthy.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,170

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Simon Jenkins: By the end of next week, the bizarre “union of four nations”, much cited during Covid, could be seriously at risk. As throughout history, England is hopeless at managing such risks. Boris Johnson seized power by championing British nationalism, yet he has only contempt for the nationalism of others. Last November Johnson called granting more power to Scotland “a disaster”, declaring devolution to be “Tony Blair’s biggest mistake”. That may soon be another quote he will deny ever having said.

    It’s sad that so many of the Commentariat seem to be gleefully talking up the dissolution of the country, purely as a means to get back at Johnson and Brexit.
    I wonder whether Johnson might go for repeal of the Scottish Parliament Act.
    I’m not quite sure he goes that far, but a wide-ranging constitutional convention is long overdue. The current asymmetric devolution arrangement, with no English Parliament, isn’t working.
    ‘We will address the unhappiness of Scottish voters by giving English voters devolution that they show no sign of wanting.
    Trebles all round!’
    41% of English voters and 52% of English Leave voters want an English Parliament, I would back that and devomax for Holyrood

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44208859
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,071
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Mr Murray in Edinburgh South, I would think - he is always urging Tories to vote for him.

    BTW I wonder what effect having the students disrupted by Covid will have on the vote - could affect LDs in Edinburgh and Fife/St Andrews maybe?
    Yes, Labour will hold Edinburgh Southern and maybe Dumbarton and East Lothian too on Thursday due to Tory tactical votes to beat the SNP
    HYUFD - what’s your overall prediction for Scotland?
    The SNP largest party but no majority on their own but only with the Greens so no change from 2016.

    The SNP will also lose seats on the list to the Greens and at the constituency level I think the SNP will lose Moray to the Tories and Caithness, Sutherland and Ross to the LDs and Edinburgh Central will go Labour, not SNP as well
    Thanks v much. You’re an honest judge, and well-informed, you don’t let your Toryness blind you. Useful
    TBH, I don't think that's fair. It was a straight answer to a straight question. And it didn't suggest that there was a hidden Tory vote that would suddenly appear, mass conversions of Johnsonism, or any other cataclysm.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,587
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    All depends how much he wants to keep the job (despite the lack of cash)

    I don’t know why he doesn’t do a deal now for his memoirs. Is it illegal? It would certainly look a lot better than asking for donors to pay his childcare

    As we discussed last night he will get millions. Problem solved. Unless it’s not allowed
    Theory: Post-Premiership Planning would mean yelling the truth to himself- that he is mortal, that there will be a time when someone else is World God and he will be subject to their whims.

    None of us like to do that, and I suspect Boris likes that idea less than average. And as a fluent liar, he can probably lie to himself, because that's easy to do.

    Today's Thought for the Day is brought to you by the Reverend J C Flannel.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    "For a government struggling with the perception that lucrative opportunities are available if you know the right people — rules and merit be damned — not requiring an interrogation of Vennells and her senior colleagues under oath is, to put it lightly, not a great look.

    Sub-postmasters and their families are not calling for an indiscriminate witch-hunt — that, after all, would make them no different from the faceless bureaucracy at the Post Office that pursued them so relentlessly without care for evidence or consequence. But “lessons learnt” without any repercussions for those who necessitated those lessons in the first place is not justice; it is absolution. We need a full, statutory inquiry, empowered by the state to hear all pertinent evidence and testimony."


    From this harrowing article on the human cost of the Post Office Horizon scandal - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-justice-was-delivered-too-late-for-my-uncle-q6q0tk8zs.

    We have a full inquiry into Grenfell, and I don't think there's much difference as far as 'lives ruined' are concerned.
    Even if a number of middle rank Post Office staff are convicted of perjury, that still doesn't absolve the people at the top who must have had questions.
    But, did they perjure themselves? They were assured that the software was working. They believed the assurances. They lacked the competence to detect software errors.

    They were gullible. They were stupid. But, these are not crimes.

    Vennells was clearly over-promoted -- though she was lauded at the time as a successful working-class woman leading an important company. She was gullible. She was stupid. These are not crimes.

    Any public inquiry will conclude that no crimes were committed by the Post Office and its management. Gross incompetence is not a crime.

    I am puzzled as to why the buckets of shit are not being poured over the software compare (Fujitsu) that supplied the crappy software that made the errors.

    They are more to blame that the wretched Vennells. They supplied the product that caused the problems, and they repeatedly assured Vennells and the Post Office that there was no problem.
    Read the emails Vennells sent- she was not asking for issues with the software to be highlighted but to hidden from her.
    Vennells has (properly) resigned from her Directorships -- IMO she should have done so much earlier.

    She is incompetent and a poor manager. She has a very serious miscarriage of justice on her conscience.

    But, she has a degree in Russian and French. She (probably) has zero understanding of software.

    The Post Office was repeatedly told by Fujitsu that there was no problem with the software.

    I suspect Vennells lacked the skillset, the competence and the curiosity to get to the bottom of the problem. She has poor leadership skills, and she should certainly have her CBE taken away from her.

    But, at the heart of this, it is Fujitsu who made the catastrophic mistake, and denied making it. They are software experts, and they had the expertise to test their software. They should be held responsible.

    My question is: why are Fujitsu not paying compensation? Why is it the UK taxpayer, through the Government?

    I don't like Vennells & I am not defending her. But, surely Fujitsu should be pursued -- they seem to me to be more blameworthy.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    If he could be out before the end of June that would be great
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,904
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,039
    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    How they would crew it is the more interesting question. The old one had a complement of nearly 300 (including its own RM band) which is 50% more than T45 destroyer.

    HMY Britannia was a unique draft in the RN. Once posted to it rates and officers could stay on it as long as they wanted until retirement. It became a bit of a dumping ground for alcoholics and other useless miscreants. The ship did kill quite a few of them (including one of its COs) with asbestos so at least that saved on pension costs.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,230

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    AlistairM said:


    I think there is a reasonable likelihood that Boris will step down after the country opens up again. Claim to be the PM who led the vaccine programme and start on the newly re-opened speech circuit making millions.

    He has just procured and had painted (at vast expense and with taxpayers' money) a VVIP A321 - not to be confused with VIP A330 and its million quid paint job. There is zero chance he (and FLOTUK) are going to relinquish the post-covid junkets in that to the Goldman-Sachs Elf and his Mrs any time soon.
    I agree. Giving up PM to ponce around on the speech circuit and write memoirs? No. Johnson won't go unless he has to. Health. Polling collapse. Criminal charges. GE defeat.
    Yes. Possibly true

    And while the present rumours look bad for him, remember what Sturgeon has survived. British politics is quite forgiving
    Or indeed what Blair survived.

    I think Carrie may soon come to be the nation's favourite hate figure, as Cherie was.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,393
    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    If he could be out before the end of June that would be great
    I do not expect him to go on his own accord, but if he has broken the ministerial code and the other enquiries condemn him then he will have to resign whenever that occurs
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,568

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    I agree. The running costs will be significant, not less than 10 million a year just for keeping it afloat I think. But Britannia was a significant part of Britain's diplomatic apparatus, and that becomes even more important now we're an independent country again.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,095
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    The authentic and repellent voice of Toryism today.

    Go away and look up what follows hubris.
    Elections have consequences, we Tories won a majority of 80 in 2019 and as a consequence legally and constitutionally will deliver our manifesto and what our voters want regardless of what anyone else thinks until the next general election in 2024. Tough
    Was the new boat in the manifesto? Genuine question.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,393

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    The authentic and repellent voice of Toryism today.

    Go away and look up what follows hubris.
    Elections have consequences, we Tories won a majority of 80 in 2019 and as a consequence legally and constitutionally will deliver our manifesto and what our voters want regardless of what anyone else thinks until the next general election in 2024. Tough
    Was the new boat in the manifesto? Genuine question.
    Yacht or ship, not boat
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,095
    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    I think that's a good angle to be honest.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,678
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    That is not true though is it? Most definitions of a democracy involve the respect of the rights and opinions of the minority, so it isn't true that all that maters is what Tory voters think.

    Decisions should come through argument and debate and the ability to change minds. It is a flaw in our parliamentary set up that although this does happen its design is not ideal for it to flourish.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,095

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    The authentic and repellent voice of Toryism today.

    Go away and look up what follows hubris.
    Elections have consequences, we Tories won a majority of 80 in 2019 and as a consequence legally and constitutionally will deliver our manifesto and what our voters want regardless of what anyone else thinks until the next general election in 2024. Tough
    Was the new boat in the manifesto? Genuine question.
    Yacht or ship, not boat
    I think that's a little bite :D
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    A couple of examples would be helpful. And one has to bear in mind that local factors and personalities, particularly in smaller communities make a difference.
    Locals are STV as well , so usual guff from this halfwit.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,309

    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    I think that's a good angle to be honest.
    What’s your thoughts on Hartlepool and Tees mayor now ? After the weekend polls ?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,071
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
    To be fair to the police, the Post Office were their own prosecutors. Unless I've seriously misread Private Eye!
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,095

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    I agree. The running costs will be significant, not less than 10 million a year just for keeping it afloat I think. But Britannia was a significant part of Britain's diplomatic apparatus, and that becomes even more important now we're an independent country again.
    Ignoring the "independent country" crap, how can you be so sure that the Duke of Edinburgh boat will be as "successful" as the Britannia in the modern era?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,556
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    All depends how much he wants to keep the job (despite the lack of cash)

    I don’t know why he doesn’t do a deal now for his memoirs. Is it illegal? It would certainly look a lot better than asking for donors to pay his childcare

    As we discussed last night he will get millions. Problem solved. Unless it’s not allowed
    Can't a Tory donor be found to give Carrie a highly-paid non-job so she can pay for the nanny and the wallpaper? Look at George Osborne's 2016 sinecures (2016 being the number and the year).
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,230

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    "For a government struggling with the perception that lucrative opportunities are available if you know the right people — rules and merit be damned — not requiring an interrogation of Vennells and her senior colleagues under oath is, to put it lightly, not a great look.

    Sub-postmasters and their families are not calling for an indiscriminate witch-hunt — that, after all, would make them no different from the faceless bureaucracy at the Post Office that pursued them so relentlessly without care for evidence or consequence. But “lessons learnt” without any repercussions for those who necessitated those lessons in the first place is not justice; it is absolution. We need a full, statutory inquiry, empowered by the state to hear all pertinent evidence and testimony."


    From this harrowing article on the human cost of the Post Office Horizon scandal - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-justice-was-delivered-too-late-for-my-uncle-q6q0tk8zs.

    We have a full inquiry into Grenfell, and I don't think there's much difference as far as 'lives ruined' are concerned.
    Even if a number of middle rank Post Office staff are convicted of perjury, that still doesn't absolve the people at the top who must have had questions.
    But, did they perjure themselves? They were assured that the software was working. They believed the assurances. They lacked the competence to detect software errors.

    They were gullible. They were stupid. But, these are not crimes.

    Vennells was clearly over-promoted -- though she was lauded at the time as a successful working-class woman leading an important company. She was gullible. She was stupid. These are not crimes.

    Any public inquiry will conclude that no crimes were committed by the Post Office and its management. Gross incompetence is not a crime.

    I am puzzled as to why the buckets of shit are not being poured over the software compare (Fujitsu) that supplied the crappy software that made the errors.

    They are more to blame that the wretched Vennells. They supplied the product that caused the problems, and they repeatedly assured Vennells and the Post Office that there was no problem.
    Read the emails Vennells sent- she was not asking for issues with the software to be highlighted but to hidden from her.
    Vennells has (properly) resigned from her Directorships -- IMO she should have done so much earlier.

    She is incompetent and a poor manager. She has a very serious miscarriage of justice on her conscience.

    But, she has a degree in Russian and French. She (probably) has zero understanding of software.

    The Post Office was repeatedly told by Fujitsu that there was no problem with the software.

    I suspect Vennells lacked the skillset, the competence and the curiosity to get to the bottom of the problem. She has poor leadership skills, and she should certainly have her CBE taken away from her.

    But, at the heart of this, it is Fujitsu who made the catastrophic mistake, and denied making it. They are software experts, and they had the expertise to test their software. They should be held responsible.

    My question is: why are Fujitsu not paying compensation? Why is it the UK taxpayer, through the Government?

    I don't like Vennells & I am not defending her. But, surely Fujitsu should be pursued -- they seem to me to be more blameworthy.
    I quite agree. The judges have referred the evidence of some of the Fujitsu employees for further investigation. But the Post Office presumably had a Head of IT. Was he/she another ignoramus who knew nothing about IT and did not have the wit to ask some pretty obvious and basic questions?

    I am not an IT expert but pretty much all my cases have involved some serious interrogation of IT systems. You need the ability to ask basic and obvious questions and if you get waffle you don't understand you keep on asking until you do understand. If you cannot manage this much you are not, IMO, fit for anything much more than putting the bins out for collection.

    There is nothing in this life so complicated that someone who understands it cannot explain it simply. And if they can't, one of two things is happening: either they don't understand it themselves or they are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Any halfway competent manager - let alone a CEO - should be able to understand IT systems sufficiently, especially when this amount of money is being spent and when problems start appearing. And they should be getting good people working for them with the technical understanding they don't have.

    We are far too willing to let people off the hook. These people are being paid good salaries to do their job properly not to behave like monkeys seeing, hearing, saying nothing.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,095
    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    I think that's a good angle to be honest.
    What’s your thoughts on Hartlepool and Tees mayor now ? After the weekend polls ?
    I still think Hartlepool will be a clear Con win but I'm slightly less sure than I was.

    Ben Houchen is nailed on to win in any case, I think. Even I'd probably vote for him.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,587

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    If he could be out before the end of June that would be great
    I do not expect him to go on his own accord, but if he has broken the ministerial code and the other enquiries condemn him then he will have to resign whenever that occurs
    But there's not much "has to".
    For a start, the PM is the ultimate arbiter of the Ministerial Code.
    Secondly, there is a substantial block of opinion- especially amongst older/Conservative/Leave voters- that are happy to wave anything through, because Boris. And that's the base Conservative MPs will be looking to.

    Obviously, he ought to go in those circumstances. But the mechanisms to make him go are pretty easy for him to ignore, unless the police get involved.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,309

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
    To be fair to the police, the Post Office were their own prosecutors. Unless I've seriously misread Private Eye!
    Correct. These were private prosecutions which continued long after concerns about Horizon were known at every level in the organisation. Fraud prosecutions went from a handful a year to the large relative numbers seen with the scandal.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,090
    Leon said:

    https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1388785998683836418

    Labour going to make real progress into 2024, in Scotland, IMHO.

    Based on that poll?! They’re up 0.5 points
    oooooft
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,345


    Cost of redecoration of flat ~ 100k, paid for -- after a bit of fuss -- apparently by the PM. Cost to taxpayers -- zero. Total amount of postings on blogs and words in newspapers ~ billions.

    Cost of mahossive Greensill Capital / Gupta corruption to taxpayers ~ up to 5 billion (source: Guardian). Total amount of postings on blogs and words in newspapers ~ at most a few hundred.

    It is Filthy, Greedy Cameron who should be under the spotlight.

    It is proof that most people are not actually interested in tackling serious fraud or corruption. They are only interested in using corruption as a party political stick.

    Now that Cameron is no longer a front line politician -- and despite his behaviour being massively more expensive for the taxpayer -- no-one is very interested.

    Your defence of Johnson and condemnation of Cameron is fascinating. I am old enough to remember political scandals going back to Polson, T. Dan Smith and of course closer to home Graham Jenkins. Scoundrels with both red and blue stripes. I call them all out.

    The Cameron/ Greensill affair stinks to high heaven, and the pong seems to be circling Downing Street. From what we have heard of Greensill so far, Johnson seems to have avoided it which is great, and Cameron is a busted flush anyway, so nothing to see until the inquiry and/or court cases tell us more. Any allegations of Greensill impropriety amongst Ministers counld and should be dealt with today by Johnson.

    So what of the wallpaper? I, like you, up until last night thought there was nothing to see. Fifty grand on curtains? My wife could manage that, if only I had it, and Carrie's chap just saved 67m people from imminent death, so what's the fuss? However TSE revelations regarding donors paying contractors directly adds a new and very alarming dimension to the case. He can survive the tasteless wallpaper, but should he survive the receipt and rulebreaking?

    Excepting that cell in The Hague with Blair's name on it, we don't want to see serving and former Prime Ministers in handcuffs (this is not France). But a life of charitable recantation, a la John Profumo, might be called for,, and for both Cameron and Johnson.
    Your defence of Johnson and condemnation of Cameron ....

    I am not defending Johnson. I think he is a chancer. I am pointing out that there is a little crook and a big crook. Let's spend some time on the infamous Mr Big.

    However TSE revelations regarding donors paying contractors directly ....

    I wasn't aware that TSE was on the spot ..... although he always has a bit of hearsay gossip, for sure.

    As a "caller out" of corruption, you might look into the purchase of that airport by the Welsh Government

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56350712

    It is in your patch.
    Yeah but...

    As I recall (and I haven't looked up your link) the airport purchase had the unpleasant aroma of an ageing Peter's pie about it. If Carwyn and Drakeford should be locked away forever, so be it. I don't see how that lets your boy off the hook though.
    "...your boy ..." ??????????????????

    I don't have any boy.

    My only thesis is most people are mainly interested in corruption from a partisan, party political POV.

    Johnson is the PM, and so minor misdemeanours from him are of vastly more interest than major misdemeanours by Cameron.

    From the information in the public domain, Cameron seems to have behaved in a much more grave manner.
    No Cameron hasn't! uUwise, and who knows, possibly verging on the very dodgy perhaps, and of course due process will run to its conclusion. But, but, the allegations against Johnson are no longer minor misdemeanours.

    I thought the wallpaper issue was a sideshow and Labour were wasting their time, but yesterday's revelations are a serious allegation relating to the proberty of the Prime Minister.

    Angela Rayner's point of funding Wilfred's nannying costs whilst voting against free school meals hits the political target, even if it is a cheap shot.

    And an even cheaper shot could be on its way in the form of Cummings on May 26th.

    Crack open the popcorn!
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,393

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    If he could be out before the end of June that would be great
    I do not expect him to go on his own accord, but if he has broken the ministerial code and the other enquiries condemn him then he will have to resign whenever that occurs
    But there's not much "has to".
    For a start, the PM is the ultimate arbiter of the Ministerial Code.
    Secondly, there is a substantial block of opinion- especially amongst older/Conservative/Leave voters- that are happy to wave anything through, because Boris. And that's the base Conservative MPs will be looking to.

    Obviously, he ought to go in those circumstances. But the mechanisms to make him go are pretty easy for him to ignore, unless the police get involved.
    Fair comment
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    All depends how much he wants to keep the job (despite the lack of cash)

    I don’t know why he doesn’t do a deal now for his memoirs. Is it illegal? It would certainly look a lot better than asking for donors to pay his childcare

    As we discussed last night he will get millions. Problem solved. Unless it’s not allowed
    Can't a Tory donor be found to give Carrie a highly-paid non-job so she can pay for the nanny and the wallpaper? Look at George Osborne's 2016 sinecures (2016 being the number and the year).
    I though the usual way this was resolved is through speaking opportunities.

    Carrie is paid 100 k to go some place and give a speech.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,230

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
    To be fair to the police, the Post Office were their own prosecutors. Unless I've seriously misread Private Eye!
    That's why I used the phrase "police and prosecutors". The Post Office lawyers failed to comply with the rules as did the SFO. As do the police. And the CPS. One of the single best investments we could make if we are serious about wanting to punish criminals is training the relevant authorities on these rules until they get them right.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,309

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    I think that's a good angle to be honest.
    What’s your thoughts on Hartlepool and Tees mayor now ? After the weekend polls ?
    I still think Hartlepool will be a clear Con win but I'm slightly less sure than I was.

    Ben Houchen is nailed on to win in any case, I think. Even I'd probably vote for him.
    Yep, I would too. I think he’s done a grand job and deserves a second term.

    Journalist Sherelle Jacobs, who I follow on Twitter, was up in Hartlepool and found no enthusiasm for labour at all but it was not, or didn’t have the feel, of 2019. She called the landslide in the red wall well before the 2019 election but thinks this is different. I respect her commentary.

    If labour do well Thursday it should be no comfort to,them as it will all be due to Tory implosion and little to do with their offer. Starmer and Rayner will likely never come to Hartlepool again after the end of next week and National labour care little for the inhabitants only their votes. Labour have learnt nothing from the fall of the red wall and if it goes back to them due to Johnson’s numerous flaws as a politician then they have no reason to do anything for the region.


  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,039

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    I agree. The running costs will be significant, not less than 10 million a year just for keeping it afloat I think. But Britannia was a significant part of Britain's diplomatic apparatus, and that becomes even more important now we're an independent country again.
    There has been significant yacht inflation so for it to be remotely impressive it would have to be on the scale of something like Maktoum's 'Dubai' which cost nearly half a billion.

    It's politically impossible because the Queen would not live to see the fucking thing built so you'd be asking the taxpayer to fund a gin palace for Gobshite and Snaggletooth to the tune of several hundred million quid.

    I don't much about yachts but I am partially responsible for the permanent ban of the Fleet Air Arm from the Royal Bombay Yacht Club.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,230

    Alistair said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    If he could be out before the end of June that would be great
    I do not expect him to go on his own accord, but if he has broken the ministerial code and the other enquiries condemn him then he will have to resign whenever that occurs
    But there's not much "has to".
    For a start, the PM is the ultimate arbiter of the Ministerial Code.
    Secondly, there is a substantial block of opinion- especially amongst older/Conservative/Leave voters- that are happy to wave anything through, because Boris. And that's the base Conservative MPs will be looking to.

    Obviously, he ought to go in those circumstances. But the mechanisms to make him go are pretty easy for him to ignore, unless the police get involved.
    Fair comment
    This is the problem with having a system based on the unspoken understanding that the people at the top are Good Chaps. When they are not the system breaks down.
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,461

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    "For a government struggling with the perception that lucrative opportunities are available if you know the right people — rules and merit be damned — not requiring an interrogation of Vennells and her senior colleagues under oath is, to put it lightly, not a great look.

    Sub-postmasters and their families are not calling for an indiscriminate witch-hunt — that, after all, would make them no different from the faceless bureaucracy at the Post Office that pursued them so relentlessly without care for evidence or consequence. But “lessons learnt” without any repercussions for those who necessitated those lessons in the first place is not justice; it is absolution. We need a full, statutory inquiry, empowered by the state to hear all pertinent evidence and testimony."


    From this harrowing article on the human cost of the Post Office Horizon scandal - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-justice-was-delivered-too-late-for-my-uncle-q6q0tk8zs.

    We have a full inquiry into Grenfell, and I don't think there's much difference as far as 'lives ruined' are concerned.
    Even if a number of middle rank Post Office staff are convicted of perjury, that still doesn't absolve the people at the top who must have had questions.
    But, did they perjure themselves? They were assured that the software was working. They believed the assurances. They lacked the competence to detect software errors.

    They were gullible. They were stupid. But, these are not crimes.

    Vennells was clearly over-promoted -- though she was lauded at the time as a successful working-class woman leading an important company. She was gullible. She was stupid. These are not crimes.

    Any public inquiry will conclude that no crimes were committed by the Post Office and its management. Gross incompetence is not a crime.

    I am puzzled as to why the buckets of shit are not being poured over the software compare (Fujitsu) that supplied the crappy software that made the errors.

    They are more to blame that the wretched Vennells. They supplied the product that caused the problems, and they repeatedly assured Vennells and the Post Office that there was no problem.
    Read the emails Vennells sent- she was not asking for issues with the software to be highlighted but to hidden from her.
    Vennells has (properly) resigned from her Directorships -- IMO she should have done so much earlier.

    She is incompetent and a poor manager. She has a very serious miscarriage of justice on her conscience.

    But, she has a degree in Russian and French. She (probably) has zero understanding of software.

    The Post Office was repeatedly told by Fujitsu that there was no problem with the software.

    I suspect Vennells lacked the skillset, the competence and the curiosity to get to the bottom of the problem. She has poor leadership skills, and she should certainly have her CBE taken away from her.

    But, at the heart of this, it is Fujitsu who made the catastrophic mistake, and denied making it. They are software experts, and they had the expertise to test their software. They should be held responsible.

    My question is: why are Fujitsu not paying compensation? Why is it the UK taxpayer, through the Government?

    I don't like Vennells & I am not defending her. But, surely Fujitsu should be pursued -- they seem to me to be more blameworthy.
    It just highlights the lack of technocratic management in the UK.

    Generalists rule the roost with the perception that you might have a read medieval French history but its the institution that matters and not the skillset.


  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    .

    Angela Rayner's point of funding Wilfred's nannying costs whilst voting against free school meals hits the political target, even if it is a cheap shot.

    What is the evidence for this?

    It seems to be at the compelling level of "Arlene Foster was having an affair with her protection officer."
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,557
    moonshine said:
    With you on this. Done a lot of reading now

    I still think it highly unlikely aliens are visiting us, but there’s enough credible people wondering out loud, to make me ponder
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    All depends how much he wants to keep the job (despite the lack of cash)

    I don’t know why he doesn’t do a deal now for his memoirs. Is it illegal? It would certainly look a lot better than asking for donors to pay his childcare

    As we discussed last night he will get millions. Problem solved. Unless it’s not allowed
    Can't a Tory donor be found to give Carrie a highly-paid non-job so she can pay for the nanny and the wallpaper? Look at George Osborne's 2016 sinecures (2016 being the number and the year).
    I though the usual way this was resolved is through speaking opportunities.

    Carrie is paid 100 k to go some place and give a speech.
    Or - here's an idea - she learns to live within her means, as the rest of the population has to.
    I suggested it because Cherie received money to give speeches whilst Tony Blair was premier.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,071
    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
    To be fair to the police, the Post Office were their own prosecutors. Unless I've seriously misread Private Eye!
    Correct. These were private prosecutions which continued long after concerns about Horizon were known at every level in the organisation. Fraud prosecutions went from a handful a year to the large relative numbers seen with the scandal.
    They were also at a very much greater level than in pre-Horizon days, which surely must have led to head-scratching among management.
    Why are we employing so many crooks now, when we apparently didn't in the past?
    Or, how much was siphoned off in the past, if so much is being siphoned off now?
    So, was there any tightening up of the recruitment process for sub-postmasters? If not, why not?
  • Options
    FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,018
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm not a Herald subscriber so can't give any more detail than the Constituency vote but I see the SNP are actually up in the latest BMG poll to 49% from BMG's mid March poll.

    The Conservative, Labour and LD votes combined though are also on 49%, so I think the Unionist parties will win significantly more than the 1 Conservative and 4 LD constituency seats they are projected via Unionist tactical voting to beat the SNP

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388776663689965568?s=20

    https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1388779988632100866?s=20
    Genuine question, to my fellow Essex man, and not trying to make a political point. What evidence is there for significant tactical pro-Unionist voting?
    Scottish local by elections
    It’s easier to vote tactically in local elections, which use STV, than in Holyrood elections, which use D’Hondt.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,230
    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
    To be fair to the police, the Post Office were their own prosecutors. Unless I've seriously misread Private Eye!
    Correct. These were private prosecutions which continued long after concerns about Horizon were known at every level in the organisation. Fraud prosecutions went from a handful a year to the large relative numbers seen with the scandal.
    Every single lawyer involved in those prosecutions who failed to disclose material about Horizon's failings to the defence, as required by the criminal disclosure rules, was in breach of their professional standards and the duties they owe to the court (which override those owed to the client) and may well also have committed acts capable of amounting to perversion of the course of justice.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,142
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    I think that's a good angle to be honest.
    What’s your thoughts on Hartlepool and Tees mayor now ? After the weekend polls ?
    I still think Hartlepool will be a clear Con win but I'm slightly less sure than I was.

    Ben Houchen is nailed on to win in any case, I think. Even I'd probably vote for him.
    Yep, I would too. I think he’s done a grand job and deserves a second term.

    Journalist Sherelle Jacobs, who I follow on Twitter, was up in Hartlepool and found no enthusiasm for labour at all but it was not, or didn’t have the feel, of 2019. She called the landslide in the red wall well before the 2019 election but thinks this is different. I respect her commentary.

    If labour do well Thursday it should be no comfort to,them as it will all be due to Tory implosion and little to do with their offer. Starmer and Rayner will likely never come to Hartlepool again after the end of next week and National labour care little for the inhabitants only their votes. Labour have learnt nothing from the fall of the red wall and if it goes back to them due to Johnson’s numerous flaws as a politician then they have no reason to do anything for the region.


    There are her most recent two comments:

    Too close to call in Hartlepool. Voters less concerned with Tory sleaze than Labour’s track record of corrupt complacency in its old stronghold. But historic dislike of Tories persists. Locals also doubt Tory biz credentials.

    Tories don’t have Hartlepool in bag. Gold wallpaper has no cut through. But neither does vaccine “bounce”. Anti-Labour sentiment is palpable. But atmosphere here feels different to 2019 when I met endless Red Wall Tory switchers. In Hartlepool haven’t met even one. Seems v tight

    https://twitter.com/Sherelle_E_J?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    If the Conservatives had won Hartlepool in 2019 it would only have been by a narrow majority.

    So 'too close to call' currently would suggest little change from then.

    No Labour to Conservative switchers isn't unexpected either - all those moving from Labour would have done so in 2019 either to BXP or Conservative.

    So the key points continue to be what happens to the 2019 BXP voters and which party is able to motivate its 2019 voters to go and vote again.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
    To be fair to the police, the Post Office were their own prosecutors. Unless I've seriously misread Private Eye!
    Correct. These were private prosecutions which continued long after concerns about Horizon were known at every level in the organisation. Fraud prosecutions went from a handful a year to the large relative numbers seen with the scandal.
    They were also at a very much greater level than in pre-Horizon days, which surely must have led to head-scratching among management.
    Why are we employing so many crooks now, when we apparently didn't in the past?

    The answer is: "We have this incredible piece of new software from Fujitsu that is enabling us to detect fraud that previously went unnoticed".
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,142
    I must say suggestions of a donor funded nanny are not good.

    Dare I say it but Carrie is going to get a Meghan Markle image ?

    And IIRC MM does not poll well in this country.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,039

    .

    Angela Rayner's point of funding Wilfred's nannying costs whilst voting against free school meals hits the political target, even if it is a cheap shot.

    What is the evidence for this?
    This is pure 22nd June 2016 thinking. We're in a different world now, of which Johnson is one of the principal architects, where concepts like 'evidence' have no purchase.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,230

    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    Worse than that, isn't it? For the next few years, all that matters really is the views of Conservative MPs.

    Now, it's true that the most likely reason MPs would dump the PM is a sense that victory in 2024 is in doubt, but even that transmission mechanism is a bit wonky.

    But apart from his backbenchers, the only restraint on the PM is is own sense of shame... which seems to have gone missing a long time ago.

    (To be clear, This Is A Bad Thing.)
    Last night's thread was compelling and while I ignore @Scott_xP daily anti Boris rantings, @TSE was very interesting and explained many of the allegations against Boris and Carrie and, to be honest if proven, he will have no choice but to resign

    Indeed, as the thread continued I became more certain that he is will be out of office sometime this year

    All depends how much he wants to keep the job (despite the lack of cash)

    I don’t know why he doesn’t do a deal now for his memoirs. Is it illegal? It would certainly look a lot better than asking for donors to pay his childcare

    As we discussed last night he will get millions. Problem solved. Unless it’s not allowed
    Can't a Tory donor be found to give Carrie a highly-paid non-job so she can pay for the nanny and the wallpaper? Look at George Osborne's 2016 sinecures (2016 being the number and the year).
    I though the usual way this was resolved is through speaking opportunities.

    Carrie is paid 100 k to go some place and give a speech.
    Or - here's an idea - she learns to live within her means, as the rest of the population has to.
    I suggested it because Cherie received money to give speeches whilst Tony Blair was premier.
    Cherie was a working lawyer and quite a good one. She acted for a friend of mine in an employment claim. She wasn't getting paid for nothing. And if she spent money foolishly it was money she had earned herself.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,481

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    We Tories have a majority of 80, all that matters is what Tory voters think until 2024
    You could precis that down to four words, **** off everyone else!
    A clearer exposition of one of the key adverses of our crooked voting system you will rarely see
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,309

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    I think that's a good angle to be honest.
    What’s your thoughts on Hartlepool and Tees mayor now ? After the weekend polls ?
    I still think Hartlepool will be a clear Con win but I'm slightly less sure than I was.

    Ben Houchen is nailed on to win in any case, I think. Even I'd probably vote for him.
    Yep, I would too. I think he’s done a grand job and deserves a second term.

    Journalist Sherelle Jacobs, who I follow on Twitter, was up in Hartlepool and found no enthusiasm for labour at all but it was not, or didn’t have the feel, of 2019. She called the landslide in the red wall well before the 2019 election but thinks this is different. I respect her commentary.

    If labour do well Thursday it should be no comfort to,them as it will all be due to Tory implosion and little to do with their offer. Starmer and Rayner will likely never come to Hartlepool again after the end of next week and National labour care little for the inhabitants only their votes. Labour have learnt nothing from the fall of the red wall and if it goes back to them due to Johnson’s numerous flaws as a politician then they have no reason to do anything for the region.


    There are her most recent two comments:

    Too close to call in Hartlepool. Voters less concerned with Tory sleaze than Labour’s track record of corrupt complacency in its old stronghold. But historic dislike of Tories persists. Locals also doubt Tory biz credentials.

    Tories don’t have Hartlepool in bag. Gold wallpaper has no cut through. But neither does vaccine “bounce”. Anti-Labour sentiment is palpable. But atmosphere here feels different to 2019 when I met endless Red Wall Tory switchers. In Hartlepool haven’t met even one. Seems v tight

    https://twitter.com/Sherelle_E_J?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    If the Conservatives had won Hartlepool in 2019 it would only have been by a narrow majority.

    So 'too close to call' currently would suggest little change from then.

    No Labour to Conservative switchers isn't unexpected either - all those moving from Labour would have done so in 2019 either to BXP or Conservative.

    So the key points continue to be what happens to the 2019 BXP voters and which party is able to motivate its 2019 voters to go and vote again.
    I saw on LinkedIn the chancellor, Ben Houchen and the Tory candidate were at a TT Electronics factory in the seat on Friday really pushing the jobs, prosperity and business side.

    Hartlepool May be remote but it isn’t humberside or Norfolk remoteness. It is close to the A19 and A1. There is no reason it cannot benefit from the industry that is looking to come to the region.

    I agree on BXP voters. People,automatically assume they are all Tories or will go to the Tories but many of them came from labour in places like this. These are voters that labour now desperately want to woo but were labelled thick, uneducated, voting against their own interests and racist by many labour supporters and remain supporters over brexit.

    If I lived there I’d vote Tory to send a message.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,028

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    I think that's a good angle to be honest.
    What’s your thoughts on Hartlepool and Tees mayor now ? After the weekend polls ?
    I still think Hartlepool will be a clear Con win but I'm slightly less sure than I was.

    Ben Houchen is nailed on to win in any case, I think. Even I'd probably vote for him.
    Yep, I would too. I think he’s done a grand job and deserves a second term.

    Journalist Sherelle Jacobs, who I follow on Twitter, was up in Hartlepool and found no enthusiasm for labour at all but it was not, or didn’t have the feel, of 2019. She called the landslide in the red wall well before the 2019 election but thinks this is different. I respect her commentary.

    If labour do well Thursday it should be no comfort to,them as it will all be due to Tory implosion and little to do with their offer. Starmer and Rayner will likely never come to Hartlepool again after the end of next week and National labour care little for the inhabitants only their votes. Labour have learnt nothing from the fall of the red wall and if it goes back to them due to Johnson’s numerous flaws as a politician then they have no reason to do anything for the region.


    There are her most recent two comments:

    Too close to call in Hartlepool. Voters less concerned with Tory sleaze than Labour’s track record of corrupt complacency in its old stronghold. But historic dislike of Tories persists. Locals also doubt Tory biz credentials.

    Tories don’t have Hartlepool in bag. Gold wallpaper has no cut through. But neither does vaccine “bounce”. Anti-Labour sentiment is palpable. But atmosphere here feels different to 2019 when I met endless Red Wall Tory switchers. In Hartlepool haven’t met even one. Seems v tight

    https://twitter.com/Sherelle_E_J?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    If the Conservatives had won Hartlepool in 2019 it would only have been by a narrow majority.

    So 'too close to call' currently would suggest little change from then.

    No Labour to Conservative switchers isn't unexpected either - all those moving from Labour would have done so in 2019 either to BXP or Conservative.

    So the key points continue to be what happens to the 2019 BXP voters and which party is able to motivate its 2019 voters to go and vote again.
    I the Tories had won Hartlepool I n 2019 I wouldn't have been a narrow victory it would have been by thousands
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 5,031
    edited May 2021
    So apparently trade negotiators will just capitulate to anything the U.K. wants because they’re fed a Michelin starred meal on HMS Prince Philip ! Another load of jingoistic flag waving nonsense from this cesspit of a government .
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,309
    eek said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So you're telling me @BorisJohnson was asking Tory donors to pay for childcare at the very same time as whipping Tory MPs vote against free school meals?
    https://twitter.com/AngelaRayner/status/1388760669516935168

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-boris-johnson-afford-to-be-prime-minister-m2brczgq9

    I think that's a good angle to be honest.
    What’s your thoughts on Hartlepool and Tees mayor now ? After the weekend polls ?
    I still think Hartlepool will be a clear Con win but I'm slightly less sure than I was.

    Ben Houchen is nailed on to win in any case, I think. Even I'd probably vote for him.
    Yep, I would too. I think he’s done a grand job and deserves a second term.

    Journalist Sherelle Jacobs, who I follow on Twitter, was up in Hartlepool and found no enthusiasm for labour at all but it was not, or didn’t have the feel, of 2019. She called the landslide in the red wall well before the 2019 election but thinks this is different. I respect her commentary.

    If labour do well Thursday it should be no comfort to,them as it will all be due to Tory implosion and little to do with their offer. Starmer and Rayner will likely never come to Hartlepool again after the end of next week and National labour care little for the inhabitants only their votes. Labour have learnt nothing from the fall of the red wall and if it goes back to them due to Johnson’s numerous flaws as a politician then they have no reason to do anything for the region.


    There are her most recent two comments:

    Too close to call in Hartlepool. Voters less concerned with Tory sleaze than Labour’s track record of corrupt complacency in its old stronghold. But historic dislike of Tories persists. Locals also doubt Tory biz credentials.

    Tories don’t have Hartlepool in bag. Gold wallpaper has no cut through. But neither does vaccine “bounce”. Anti-Labour sentiment is palpable. But atmosphere here feels different to 2019 when I met endless Red Wall Tory switchers. In Hartlepool haven’t met even one. Seems v tight

    https://twitter.com/Sherelle_E_J?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

    If the Conservatives had won Hartlepool in 2019 it would only have been by a narrow majority.

    So 'too close to call' currently would suggest little change from then.

    No Labour to Conservative switchers isn't unexpected either - all those moving from Labour would have done so in 2019 either to BXP or Conservative.

    So the key points continue to be what happens to the 2019 BXP voters and which party is able to motivate its 2019 voters to go and vote again.
    I the Tories had won Hartlepool I n 2019 I wouldn't have been a narrow victory it would have been by thousands
    What’s your expectation for Thursday after the recent sleaze stuff and poll slump for the Tories ?

  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,309

    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    "For a government struggling with the perception that lucrative opportunities are available if you know the right people — rules and merit be damned — not requiring an interrogation of Vennells and her senior colleagues under oath is, to put it lightly, not a great look.

    Sub-postmasters and their families are not calling for an indiscriminate witch-hunt — that, after all, would make them no different from the faceless bureaucracy at the Post Office that pursued them so relentlessly without care for evidence or consequence. But “lessons learnt” without any repercussions for those who necessitated those lessons in the first place is not justice; it is absolution. We need a full, statutory inquiry, empowered by the state to hear all pertinent evidence and testimony."


    From this harrowing article on the human cost of the Post Office Horizon scandal - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-justice-was-delivered-too-late-for-my-uncle-q6q0tk8zs.

    We have a full inquiry into Grenfell, and I don't think there's much difference as far as 'lives ruined' are concerned.
    Even if a number of middle rank Post Office staff are convicted of perjury, that still doesn't absolve the people at the top who must have had questions.
    But, did they perjure themselves? They were assured that the software was working. They believed the assurances. They lacked the competence to detect software errors.

    They were gullible. They were stupid. But, these are not crimes.

    Vennells was clearly over-promoted -- though she was lauded at the time as a successful working-class woman leading an important company. She was gullible. She was stupid. These are not crimes.

    Any public inquiry will conclude that no crimes were committed by the Post Office and its management. Gross incompetence is not a crime.

    I am puzzled as to why the buckets of shit are not being poured over the software compare (Fujitsu) that supplied the crappy software that made the errors.

    They are more to blame that the wretched Vennells. They supplied the product that caused the problems, and they repeatedly assured Vennells and the Post Office that there was no problem.
    Read the emails Vennells sent- she was not asking for issues with the software to be highlighted but to hidden from her.
    Vennells has (properly) resigned from her Directorships -- IMO she should have done so much earlier.

    She is incompetent and a poor manager. She has a very serious miscarriage of justice on her conscience.

    But, she has a degree in Russian and French. She (probably) has zero understanding of software.

    The Post Office was repeatedly told by Fujitsu that there was no problem with the software.

    I suspect Vennells lacked the skillset, the competence and the curiosity to get to the bottom of the problem. She has poor leadership skills, and she should certainly have her CBE taken away from her.

    But, at the heart of this, it is Fujitsu who made the catastrophic mistake, and denied making it. They are software experts, and they had the expertise to test their software. They should be held responsible.

    My question is: why are Fujitsu not paying compensation? Why is it the UK taxpayer, through the Government?

    I don't like Vennells & I am not defending her. But, surely Fujitsu should be pursued -- they seem to me to be more blameworthy.
    I quite agree. The judges have referred the evidence of some of the Fujitsu employees for further investigation. But the Post Office presumably had a Head of IT. Was he/she another ignoramus who knew nothing about IT and did not have the wit to ask some pretty obvious and basic questions?

    I am not an IT expert but pretty much all my cases have involved some serious interrogation of IT systems. You need the ability to ask basic and obvious questions and if you get waffle you don't understand you keep on asking until you do understand. If you cannot manage this much you are not, IMO, fit for anything much more than putting the bins out for collection.

    There is nothing in this life so complicated that someone who understands it cannot explain it simply. And if they can't, one of two things is happening: either they don't understand it themselves or they are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Any halfway competent manager - let alone a CEO - should be able to understand IT systems sufficiently, especially when this amount of money is being spent and when problems start appearing. And they should be getting good people working for them with the technical understanding they don't have.

    We are far too willing to let people off the hook. These people are being paid good salaries to do their job properly not to behave like monkeys seeing, hearing, saying nothing.
    As far as I am concerned Vennells should be in jail. She was the Chief Executive at the time when the Post Office ordered Second Sight to abandon their investigations and destroy any remaining paperwork one day before they were due to issue a damning report into the Horizon scandal. She clearly knew that the PO was at fault and that people were having their lives ruined because of a failure by the Post Office and yet she chose to suppress those findings and allow people to remain in jail or eventually commit suicide rather than admit the Post Office got it wrong.

    She deserves no sympathy or understanding for this. She deserve to be prosecuted.
    On what charge.

    I agree with your core sentiment, she should be punished. She won’t be. She, like all the others who bear some responsibility, will get on with their lives.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,071

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
    To be fair to the police, the Post Office were their own prosecutors. Unless I've seriously misread Private Eye!
    Correct. These were private prosecutions which continued long after concerns about Horizon were known at every level in the organisation. Fraud prosecutions went from a handful a year to the large relative numbers seen with the scandal.
    They were also at a very much greater level than in pre-Horizon days, which surely must have led to head-scratching among management.
    Why are we employing so many crooks now, when we apparently didn't in the past?

    The answer is: "We have this incredible piece of new software from Fujitsu that is enabling us to detect fraud that previously went unnoticed".
    I agree, but refer you to my third and fourth questions. What there any tightening up of the recruitment process?
    And if not, why not?
    Some of those involved had been with the PO for years, some recruited quite recently.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    Can someone explain to me why Carrie needs a nanny? She doesn't have a job.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,309
    nico679 said:

    So apparently trade negotiators will just capitulate to anything the U.K. wants because they’re fed a Michelin starred meal on HMS Prince Philip ! Another load of jingoistic flag waving nonsense from this cesspit of a government .

    No one is claiming that. But Do carry on ranting.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,230

    Taz said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Is the proposal to spend £200 million on another Royal Yacht a serious one?

    If so, just no.

    The Royal Family can buy their own bloody yacht. And government ministers don't need one.

    We need one to help with our trade deals post Brexit and it will also help sell global Britain.

    An excellent Tory idea from this Tory majority government and backed by 51% of Tory voters to just 31% opposed.
    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/wpapp9bzh5/Internal_RoyalYacht_210414 .pdf
    So supported by a minority of all voters then.

    No - it's an utter waste of money. A vanity project for a vainglorious government.
    No, I don't think so.

    Being coldly logical about it I think a Royal Yacht will easily deliver a positive rate of return to the Exchequer.
    If the government is serious about cutting crime it should be spending that money on the criminal justice system so victims and defendants don't have to wait 3 or 4 or more years before a case comes to court. Or in training the police and prosecutors in how to comply with the disclosure rules in criminal trials so that we don't get miscarriages like the Post Office case or the collapse of the Serco fraud trial or the many other criminal cases which have collapsed because of this failure. That would provide a much better rate of return and actually do something to deal with crime which is meant to be one of this government's priorities.

    But no opportunities for champagne quaffing so obviously nothing will be done.
    To be fair to the police, the Post Office were their own prosecutors. Unless I've seriously misread Private Eye!
    Correct. These were private prosecutions which continued long after concerns about Horizon were known at every level in the organisation. Fraud prosecutions went from a handful a year to the large relative numbers seen with the scandal.
    They were also at a very much greater level than in pre-Horizon days, which surely must have led to head-scratching among management.
    Why are we employing so many crooks now, when we apparently didn't in the past?

    The answer is: "We have this incredible piece of new software from Fujitsu that is enabling us to detect fraud that previously went unnoticed".
    And did no-one then ask: "Why was this fraud not picked up before?" "What the hell were our internal auditors doing?" and "If this is correct, do we need to restate our accounts for previous years?"

    Or, even, does this fit with everything else we know? Because reliance on only one data point - even if it comes from a computer, in fact, especially if it comes from a computer - is a route to disaster, as any number of banks will be able to tell you.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,557
    ‘A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged’

    If that old saying is true, this is a big test for Owen

    @OwenJones

    ‘just had my phone snatched off me by a guy on a bike, how's your evening going

    This is the third time it's happened, always in Islington’
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    Cyclefree said:

    "For a government struggling with the perception that lucrative opportunities are available if you know the right people — rules and merit be damned — not requiring an interrogation of Vennells and her senior colleagues under oath is, to put it lightly, not a great look.

    Sub-postmasters and their families are not calling for an indiscriminate witch-hunt — that, after all, would make them no different from the faceless bureaucracy at the Post Office that pursued them so relentlessly without care for evidence or consequence. But “lessons learnt” without any repercussions for those who necessitated those lessons in the first place is not justice; it is absolution. We need a full, statutory inquiry, empowered by the state to hear all pertinent evidence and testimony."


    From this harrowing article on the human cost of the Post Office Horizon scandal - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-justice-was-delivered-too-late-for-my-uncle-q6q0tk8zs.

    We have a full inquiry into Grenfell, and I don't think there's much difference as far as 'lives ruined' are concerned.
    Even if a number of middle rank Post Office staff are convicted of perjury, that still doesn't absolve the people at the top who must have had questions.
    But, did they perjure themselves? They were assured that the software was working. They believed the assurances. They lacked the competence to detect software errors.

    They were gullible. They were stupid. But, these are not crimes.

    Vennells was clearly over-promoted -- though she was lauded at the time as a successful working-class woman leading an important company. She was gullible. She was stupid. These are not crimes.

    Any public inquiry will conclude that no crimes were committed by the Post Office and its management. Gross incompetence is not a crime.

    I am puzzled as to why the buckets of shit are not being poured over the software compare (Fujitsu) that supplied the crappy software that made the errors.

    They are more to blame that the wretched Vennells. They supplied the product that caused the problems, and they repeatedly assured Vennells and the Post Office that there was no problem.
    Read the emails Vennells sent- she was not asking for issues with the software to be highlighted but to hidden from her.
    Vennells has (properly) resigned from her Directorships -- IMO she should have done so much earlier.

    She is incompetent and a poor manager. She has a very serious miscarriage of justice on her conscience.

    But, she has a degree in Russian and French. She (probably) has zero understanding of software.

    The Post Office was repeatedly told by Fujitsu that there was no problem with the software.

    I suspect Vennells lacked the skillset, the competence and the curiosity to get to the bottom of the problem. She has poor leadership skills, and she should certainly have her CBE taken away from her.

    But, at the heart of this, it is Fujitsu who made the catastrophic mistake, and denied making it. They are software experts, and they had the expertise to test their software. They should be held responsible.

    My question is: why are Fujitsu not paying compensation? Why is it the UK taxpayer, through the Government?

    I don't like Vennells & I am not defending her. But, surely Fujitsu should be pursued -- they seem to me to be more blameworthy.
    I quite agree. The judges have referred the evidence of some of the Fujitsu employees for further investigation. But the Post Office presumably had a Head of IT. Was he/she another ignoramus who knew nothing about IT and did not have the wit to ask some pretty obvious and basic questions?

    I am not an IT expert but pretty much all my cases have involved some serious interrogation of IT systems. You need the ability to ask basic and obvious questions and if you get waffle you don't understand you keep on asking until you do understand. If you cannot manage this much you are not, IMO, fit for anything much more than putting the bins out for collection.

    There is nothing in this life so complicated that someone who understands it cannot explain it simply. And if they can't, one of two things is happening: either they don't understand it themselves or they are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. Any halfway competent manager - let alone a CEO - should be able to understand IT systems sufficiently, especially when this amount of money is being spent and when problems start appearing. And they should be getting good people working for them with the technical understanding they don't have.

    We are far too willing to let people off the hook. These people are being paid good salaries to do their job properly not to behave like monkeys seeing, hearing, saying nothing.
    I quite agree. Vennells was grossly incompetent. As was the Head of IT at the Post Office. But. gross incompetence isn't actually a crime.

    As I understand it, Fujitsu supplied a defective product and then covered it up. This may well be criminal behaviour.

    At some point in this story, there was a cover-up. Someone knew the software was broken and did not act.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,230
    MaxPB said:

    Can someone explain to me why Carrie needs a nanny? She doesn't have a job.

    To keep the child and dog away from the wallpaper and expensive furniture.
This discussion has been closed.