Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Sounds interesting, one of my ancestors was a regicide.
Ooh which one? Did he get to die a natural death, or did he suffer for his vote?
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
He's being a fool trying to bugger with status at a Private Funeral.
Just imagine if the Duchess of Sussex pulled a stunt like this at the funeral.
But her critics are silent/not dropping so much crap on him.
Can't imagine why.
Everyone knows that Andrew is a shit. His apporval rating is 2 - 6%.
But why doesn't he attract the opprobrium on here and other places that the Duchess of Sussex does?
I think he did at the time. It was pretty non-stop on here.
But, Andrew didn't directly attack the institution or his family.
I know, he committed the minor transgression of maintaining a friendship with a convicted nonce, which is obviously isn't as bad as criticising the Royal family.
The Sussexes have done serious political damage to the UK and the monarchy with their largely unevidenced accusations and it might contribute to shedding several Commonwealth realms.
Andrew is a pompous, obstinate and ignorant fool but his problems are his own.
The complacency of Conservatives is tangible. Clear signs that they’ve been in power too long. Remember this with Labour and the Tories before them. Change will not come overnight, but the rot is setting in.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
I thought you were a fan of the coalition government? That's who's bent, not the current administration (they might be too, but from what I can tell Sunak did everything right).
Yes, by and large I was a supporter of the Coalition. That doesn't make me blind to the sleaze, and I think that the key events were under Tory control, and/or after 2015.
The lack of wanting to own the coalition record in government is why the Lib Dems got their arses hand to them by the electorate.
This is one of those weird statements that I see repeated as fact a lot.
Simply going into coalition with the Tories broke the Lib Dems in the eyes of many voters.
In 2010 they got 18.9% of the vote in Scotland, in 2011 they got 8% - losing over half their vote. This was not down to failing to own their record in government.
But it explains why they are still nailed to the floor
The anti-Tory tendency still hates them but they can’t win the soft Tories over if they aren’t proud of the coalition.
I should be a natural target for the Lib Dem’s. But they don’t even try.
The whole coalition thing is weird. After years they got in a position where they could do a bit of what they campaigned for, and be in a bit of power - which is why you stand in elections. They compromise on various policies - that's what coalitions are all about and should put themselves in a position to build on that.
Instead their own supporters turn on them for doing compromise politics, blame them for not fulfilling their election manifesto when they are a small minority, and destroy a once respectable party.
Good people like Clegg and Laws self destruct/get obliterated, and their voters come across as a pathetic shower of losers who vote against their own party because they won something. They seem no better than the Labour left. Any Liberal with sense has little choice now but to join the liberal/libertarian/one nation (according to taste) section of the Tories.
The Lib Dems sold out far too cheaply and reneged on a pledge.
If you draw a significant portion of support from students don't fuck with the students.
It is pretty simple politics.
However, the Liberals once had a sort of image for attracting thoughtful slightly selfless voters who understood things, including understanding the meaning of coalition and compromise. Students as a body are going to be people who can operate at a graduate level of intellect. Well, the abandonment of the Liberals by these good people certainly trashed that image.
And they did not renege on a pledge - if you are thinking of tuition fees. The Liberals stood on a platform for government and failed to win the election. Pledges at that point cannot mean anything. You run on a platform and you don't win. You then negotiate and compromise. It isn't rocket science.
Blaming the voters is a sure fire vote winner for a party.
Just watching BBC 10pm news. Interesting that they led on Cameron/Greensill/Tory sleaze; it didn't look great for the government. I can't remember the last time that the first item wasn't on Covid/vaccines (apart from HRH death of course).
Maybe just a straw in the wind? Start of a return to 'normal' politics if Covid doesn't bounce back? The public don't care abour sleaze currently, but if Labour can keep it high on the news agenda that could change.
The LibDems need to rebrand themselves and start again.. A different name, a different logo and a leader that doesn’t make the invisible man stand out.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Sounds interesting, one of my ancestors was a regicide.
Ooh which one? Did he get to die a natural death, or did he suffer for his vote?
He wasn't in the direct line, I am descended from one of his nephews.
He died before the Restoration, but was dug up and chucked in a common grave.
Just watching BBC 10pm news. Interesting that they led on Cameron/Greensill/Tory sleaze; it didn't look great for the government. I can't remember the last time that the first item wasn't on Covid/vaccines (apart from HRH death of course).
Maybe just a straw in the wind? Start of a return to 'normal' politics if Covid doesn't bounce back? The public don't care abour sleaze currently, but if Labour can keep it high on the news agenda that could change.
Feels like Panama Papers to me (that also involved Cameron!).
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Simple answer is that, in the short term, populism is popular. Look at Peron. Look at Berlusconi. It just tends to leave countries that are governed according to populism in a bad way, because the money runs out. And then the countries involved have a choice between "neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners" or something worse.
Unless you know of an exception. Scholar that you are.
I honestly don't even know where to begin with such a simpleminded definition of populism. According to the one you use, New Labour fits the pattern perfectly, leaving the country in a bad way with the money having run out and being forced into 'neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners'.
So are New Labour now also to be consider much-despised populists, like Boris? Or will you shift your silly definition to exclude them? Perhaps you could provide a handy list of which governments you consider populist and which not, so that we don't have to waste our time.
Oh, and I thought we were getting on so well...
By all means, include New Labour- certainly post 2001. Arguably, it's the besetting sin of all British postwar politics- parties offering Scandinavian attitudes to public spending coupled with American attitudes to tax. And because nice men in respectable suits with colourful rosettes (of all colours) have offered variations on that theme, the GBP have tended to vote for it. Why shouldn't they?
But anyway... If you look at the entrepreneurial optimism of Silvio B or the 20 Tenets of Peronism, it's not obvious how they differ significantly from Johnson's Conservative Party. Not to me, anyway. And those sorts of governments tend not to end well, do they?
Still, I'm sure the ride will be fun in the meantime.
The complacency of Conservatives is tangible. Clear signs that they’ve been in power too long. Remember this with Labour and the Tories before them. Change will not come overnight, but the rot is setting in.
Lord Hogan Howe been named tonight as having been involved with Greensill Capital while advising the cabinet office
You do wonder just who and how many politicians, civil servants, and others from across the political divide will be drawn into this
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
The complacency of Conservatives is tangible. Clear signs that they’ve been in power too long. Remember this with Labour and the Tories before them. Change will not come overnight, but the rot is setting in.
Yes, this could be the one that may start the Boris Johnson edifice to crumble.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
The LibDems need to rebrand themselves and start again.. A different name, a different logo and a leader that doesn’t make the invisible man stand out.
What's the point? Until they decide what they're for?
The polite fiction that they could tell some voters to vote for them to stop the Tories (while simultaneously telling other voters to vote for them to stop Labour) has gone forever.
Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with the Tories? In which case why should any left wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with Labour? In which case why should any right wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that won't go into coalition? In which case why should any voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will go into office with either party? In which case a vote by anyone doesn't "stop" the other party.
Just watching BBC 10pm news. Interesting that they led on Cameron/Greensill/Tory sleaze; it didn't look great for the government. I can't remember the last time that the first item wasn't on Covid/vaccines (apart from HRH death of course).
Maybe just a straw in the wind? Start of a return to 'normal' politics if Covid doesn't bounce back? The public don't care abour sleaze currently, but if Labour can keep it high on the news agenda that could change.
Maybe while Labour are keeping it high on the agenda, they could introduce a register of lobbyists for the Senedd ?
Holyrood, Stormont and Westminster all have a register of lobbyists. It is just the one Parliament that Labour control -- and have controlled since its inception -- that does not have a register of lobbyists.
Carwyn Jones said a register of lobbyists needed more thought in 2018 .... as he joined the now discredited Gupta's GFG Alliance (which is responsible for Greensill's collapse).
So, if Labour are keeping it high on the news agenda, let's hope they can bring Wales into line with the other countries in the UK?
Just watching BBC 10pm news. Interesting that they led on Cameron/Greensill/Tory sleaze; it didn't look great for the government. I can't remember the last time that the first item wasn't on Covid/vaccines (apart from HRH death of course).
Maybe just a straw in the wind? Start of a return to 'normal' politics if Covid doesn't bounce back? The public don't care abour sleaze currently, but if Labour can keep it high on the news agenda that could change.
The first negative BBC News at Ten since mid December for the Johnson Party. I thought it was, by the BBC News's usual standards of Government fawning sycophancy, absolutely brutal.
The LibDems need to rebrand themselves and start again.. A different name, a different logo and a leader that doesn’t make the invisible man stand out.
What's the point? Until they decide what they're for?
The polite fiction that they could tell some voters to vote for them to stop the Tories (while simultaneously telling other voters to vote for them to stop Labour) has gone forever.
Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with the Tories? In which case why should any left wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with Labour? In which case why should any right wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that won't go into coalition? In which case why should any voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will go into office with either party? In which case a vote by anyone doesn't "stop" the other party.
I mean the third/fourth options are valid. If you want to stop the Tories/Labour -1 seats for them is still a good outcome.
NEW: Simon Case letter to Perm Secs: "serious issues have come to light which are of acute concern for us as the senior leadership team of the Civil Service" They have until Fri to declare "any instances of senior civil servants holding remunerated positions or other interests".
It is astonishing that it is not already a requirement to (a) inform managers first; (b) get approval before taking such a role; and (c) keep a central record of such people, their roles and all the other information necessary to manage any conflicts of interest. This is basic stuff.
As a bare minimum the Civil Service should have a Conflicts of Interest policy and an Outside Business Interests Policy.
If they don't I can draft them for them. I'll throw in the necessary training and the inevitable investigations as well.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Simple answer is that, in the short term, populism is popular. Look at Peron. Look at Berlusconi. It just tends to leave countries that are governed according to populism in a bad way, because the money runs out. And then the countries involved have a choice between "neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners" or something worse.
Unless you know of an exception. Scholar that you are.
I honestly don't even know where to begin with such a simpleminded definition of populism. According to the one you use, New Labour fits the pattern perfectly, leaving the country in a bad way with the money having run out and being forced into 'neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners'.
So are New Labour now also to be consider much-despised populists, like Boris? Or will you shift your silly definition to exclude them? Perhaps you could provide a handy list of which governments you consider populist and which not, so that we don't have to waste our time.
Oh, and I thought we were getting on so well...
By all means, include New Labour- certainly post 2001. Arguably, it's the besetting sin of all British postwar politics- parties offering Scandinavian attitudes to public spending coupled with American attitudes to tax. And because nice men in respectable suits with colourful rosettes (of all colours) have offered variations on that theme, the GBP have tended to vote for it. Why shouldn't they?
But anyway... If you look at the entrepreneurial optimism of Silvio B or the 20 Tenets of Peronism, it's not obvious how they differ significantly from Johnson's Conservative Party. Not to me, anyway. And those sorts of governments tend not to end well, do they?
Still, I'm sure the ride will be fun in the meantime.
All right, I'm sorry for the overly-grumpy response - I've been getting easily irked today. I'm sure I'll be better able to engage with the merits or otherwise of populist economics another time.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
My take on the polls is that there is a lot of antipathy to Labour which is buoying the Tory vote. Circumstances and the actions of the Tories could be so dire that enough of the antipathetic will switch or not vote but I think things would have to become very bad for a Labour majority. Out of Corbynism into Woke is the great trap for Labour. I also think Labour's lead amongst the educated middle class might be very soft if they adopt a radical economic programme that would threaten their comfortable lifestyles. Objectively there is a great opportunity arising for LDs or even a new party.
I'm afraid "a new party" is always a sign of male crisis in late middle age.
Galloway, Salmond, Lozza Fox ... and now N. of Stoke.
My guess is @Leon will be forming a new party soon.
They are kind of screwed as a group if, even at such a time, they are relying on the Queen to be the one who is being sensible and making the rest be sensible as well. Charles has been in training his whole life, and Will is, in proper fashion, boringly sensible, but will they be able to keep a lid on the rest of them without her matriarchal authority?
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
They are kind of screwed as a group if, even at such a time, they are relying on the Queen to be the one who is being sensible and making the rest be sensible as well. Charles has been in training his whole life, and Will is, in proper fashion, boringly sensible, but will they be able to keep a lid on the rest of them without her matriarchal authority?
It is a very good point and when the Queen passes it will be a sad day for the country but also huge uncertainty for the surviving Royals
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
I thought you were a fan of the coalition government? That's who's bent, not the current administration (they might be too, but from what I can tell Sunak did everything right).
Yes, by and large I was a supporter of the Coalition. That doesn't make me blind to the sleaze, and I think that the key events were under Tory control, and/or after 2015.
The lack of wanting to own the coalition record in government is why the Lib Dems got their arses hand to them by the electorate.
This is one of those weird statements that I see repeated as fact a lot.
Simply going into coalition with the Tories broke the Lib Dems in the eyes of many voters.
In 2010 they got 18.9% of the vote in Scotland, in 2011 they got 8% - losing over half their vote. This was not down to failing to own their record in government.
Indeed. The Lib Dems' poll ratings went down exactly in tandem with their association with a Conservative government. As the memory wears off, theiir share as the traditional nonconformist protest vote, originally in fact a Protestant Nonconformist vote, will rise again.
The LDs - and the Liberals before them - benefitted as the obvious protest vehicle for the NOTA inclined. They now have serious rivals for that vote - eg the Greens .
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I can't help that feel that between this and other series of briefings against Sunak wrt to delaying lockdowns there's an awful lot of knives looking for a home in his back; the 01-05 intake realise that their chance of power is almost gone.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
If Boris is sure he and his closest s chums are in the clear, he might even choose to unleash the hounds, and find a way to get Blair in scope.
They are kind of screwed as a group if, even at such a time, they are relying on the Queen to be the one who is being sensible and making the rest be sensible as well. Charles has been in training his whole life, and Will is, in proper fashion, boringly sensible, but will they be able to keep a lid on the rest of them without her matriarchal authority?
I doubt the average voter could care less whether the males in the royal family wear military uniforms on Saturday or not.
In any case it is Charles and William who are next in line to the throne after the Queen, not Andrew and Harry neither of whom even perform royal duties anymore
Good evening from Sheffield. My first trip to England in 2 months and my first business trip away in 7 months, Its surreal - and I used to be away at least once a week
I have my first biz trip since December next week. To Oxford. Cannot WAIT!
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
Big G. Cameron's desperate pleas to save Greensill are very recent.
Cameron works for Greensill, Jones works for Gupta. So far so good. Cameron begged Government Ministers for money for contracts and/or cash to save Greensill, I am not aware Jones has done that.
The key to the Cameron element of any scandal is, did any Government Ministers give in to Cameron's pleas?
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
If Boris is sure he and his closest s chums are in the clear, he might even choose to unleash the hounds, and find a way to get Blair in scope.
That's what confused me about today/yesterday, surely broadening the scope as far as possible is fully in Johnson's interests, if, he believes he's in the clear. Broaden the scope out, get the SNP, Carwyn Jones, the civil service etc all dragged into it, and dilute the interest. No-one will come out well in a broad scale inquiry.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
If Boris is sure he and his closest s chums are in the clear, he might even choose to unleash the hounds, and find a way to get Blair in scope.
Nobody knows where this is going
Yet to be named politicians and civil servants across the political divide may find they have questions to answer
The LibDems need to rebrand themselves and start again.. A different name, a different logo and a leader that doesn’t make the invisible man stand out.
What's the point? Until they decide what they're for?
The polite fiction that they could tell some voters to vote for them to stop the Tories (while simultaneously telling other voters to vote for them to stop Labour) has gone forever.
Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with the Tories? In which case why should any left wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with Labour? In which case why should any right wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that won't go into coalition? In which case why should any voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will go into office with either party? In which case a vote by anyone doesn't "stop" the other party.
The LDs are what they have always been on the whole, a centrist and socially liberal alternative to the 2 main parties at Westminster level and a party to mend the potholes and appeal to NIMBYS in local council elections (at least that is how they present themselves) as well being a party that will continue to push for closer alignment to the SM and CU
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
If Boris is sure he and his closest s chums are in the clear, he might even choose to unleash the hounds, and find a way to get Blair in scope.
Apart from the obvious possibility that Johnson has his hand in the till too, the other risk of declaring war on the kleptocrat oligarchy is that it will make him a lot of enemies in the party.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
He's being a fool trying to bugger with status at a Private Funeral.
Just imagine if the Duchess of Sussex pulled a stunt like this at the funeral.
But her critics are silent/not dropping so much crap on him.
Can't imagine why.
Everyone knows that Andrew is a shit. His apporval rating is 2 - 6%.
But why doesn't he attract the opprobrium on here and other places that the Duchess of Sussex does?
Because she was spreading fake news about the whole Royal Family being racists?
What makes you think it was fake news?
What makes you think she was being truthful..
In defence of Andrew, he's a bumptious buffoon entirely lacking in self-awareness whose every action demeans the royal family and by extention the nation [not sure this defence is going too well] BUT this is all a result of stupidty, crassness and self-centredness [still not sure I'd make a lawyer here] - he's not actively setting out to bring down the monarchy or trash Britain's reputation. That's why when he decides his father's funeral is going to be fancy dress we just roll our eyes - that sort of behaviour is priced in, indeed, it's grimly funny in a way - whereas when Megan slags off the royal family and the whole of the UK as a bunch of racists, we get a bit tetchy. Andrew's lies are just to keep him out of trouble. Risible, but sort of understandable: Andrew is the clumsy defender protesting he never touched the player lying on the grass with stud marks on his thigh. Megan is the slinky attacker lying shrieking on the turf clutching her face when the replays show the ball hitting her in the thigh.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
Big G. Cameron's desperate pleas to save Greensill are very recent.
Cameron works for Greensill, Jones works for Gupta. So far so good. Cameron begged Government Ministers for money for contracts and/or cash to save Greensill, I am not aware Jones has done that.
The key to the Cameron element of any scandal is, did any Government Ministers give in to Cameron's pleas?
They are kind of screwed as a group if, even at such a time, they are relying on the Queen to be the one who is being sensible and making the rest be sensible as well. Charles has been in training his whole life, and Will is, in proper fashion, boringly sensible, but will they be able to keep a lid on the rest of them without her matriarchal authority?
I doubt the average voter could care less whether the males in the royal family wear military uniforms on Saturday or not.
In any case it is Charles and William who are next in line to the throne after the Queen, not Andrew and Harry neither of whom even perform royal duties anymore
I think you've missed my point, which was that the family members are reportedly squabbling over petty issues to the point it apparently still requires the Queen herself, no doubt hit harder than anyone by the death of her husband, to personally intervene to sort it out.
It's not about whether the public care what they wear, or what the line of succession is. It's about whether those not in the direct line damage the institution through their general behaviour, and if they can be managed without the Queen there to manage them.
The weather this evening was too cold for a lot of potential pub drinkers from what I saw.
I went to the pub earlier. The beer was great but the experience was mediocre and the food was shit.
Refused the NHS app (as I always do) but left my name and number. It was in a marquee (so no sun) but I get why they did it so don't mind. Bit chilly - so I had my coat on.
The house burger tasted like a frozen patty they'd bought from Iceland and stuck in the oven for 20 minutes. Chips were ok though.
Will I go again? Sure I will. They've had a rough time and need the support - so I will suck it up and ignore it. But I'll be drinking more and asking for a recommendation before ordering next time.
Good evening from Sheffield. My first trip to England in 2 months and my first business trip away in 7 months, Its surreal - and I used to be away at least once a week
I have my first biz trip since December next week. To Oxford. Cannot WAIT!
Not to boast, but my first work trip in 8 months was by the West Highland Line to Oban and the Isle of Mull....simply glorious.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
Big G. Cameron's desperate pleas to save Greensill are very recent.
Cameron works for Greensill, Jones works for Gupta. So far so good. Cameron begged Government Ministers for money for contracts and/or cash to save Greensill, I am not aware Jones has done that.
The key to the Cameron element of any scandal is, did any Government Ministers give in to Cameron's pleas?
And did they
Innocent until proved guilty is law
Yes that is so. No one should face criminal sanction without proof of guilt.
But it pretty uncontroversial that many things not only need to be done right, they must be seen to be done right. That is why such a thing as apparent bias exists in respect of decision making.
And in important matters, an at best lack of care toward process and conflicts is, while not as bad as proven procedural impropriety and conflict, not good at all. Any defence relies on being utterly stupid, which is not a good position to be in. The stuff about the civil servant second jobs is flabbergasting.
Good evening from Sheffield. My first trip to England in 2 months and my first business trip away in 7 months, Its surreal - and I used to be away at least once a week
I have my first biz trip since December next week. To Oxford. Cannot WAIT!
Not to boast, but my first work trip in 8 months was by the West Highland Line to Oban and the Isle of Mull....simply glorious.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
If Boris is sure he and his closest s chums are in the clear, he might even choose to unleash the hounds, and find a way to get Blair in scope.
Nobody knows where this is going
Yet to be named politicians and civil servants across the political divide may find they have questions to answer
Let me guess, Drakeford and Sturgeon will be in the frame afore we know it.
You're just trying to use it to smear the institution, as is your wont.
No, unlike my venerable ancestor, I am not a republican.
I just like to enjoy the soap opera.
Or to create one when the script isn't sufficient for you.
Nah, it is an archaic institution, of Ruritarian quality, with farcical feuds about nothing. Court politics is so vicious because the stakes are so low.
The LibDems need to rebrand themselves and start again.. A different name, a different logo and a leader that doesn’t make the invisible man stand out.
What's the point? Until they decide what they're for?
The polite fiction that they could tell some voters to vote for them to stop the Tories (while simultaneously telling other voters to vote for them to stop Labour) has gone forever.
Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with the Tories? In which case why should any left wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with Labour? In which case why should any right wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that won't go into coalition? In which case why should any voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will go into office with either party? In which case a vote by anyone doesn't "stop" the other party.
The LDs are what they have always been on the whole, a centrist and socially liberal alternative to the 2 main parties at Westminster level and a party to mend the potholes and appeal to NIMBYS in local council elections (at least that is how they present themselves) as well being a party that will continue to push for closer alignment to the SM and CU
But it would be nice to have some people for whom liberal democracy was a starting principle, especially given the year we've had, and given the big two parties are prioritising other offers.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
Big G. Cameron's desperate pleas to save Greensill are very recent.
Cameron works for Greensill, Jones works for Gupta. So far so good. Cameron begged Government Ministers for money for contracts and/or cash to save Greensill, I am not aware Jones has done that.
The key to the Cameron element of any scandal is, did any Government Ministers give in to Cameron's pleas?
And did they
Innocent until proved guilty is law
I have no idea, and I have not suggested anyone in Cabinet has done anything wrong re: Cameron.
However, even Cameron has conceded the whole thing looks slightly awful, which is the bit that might resonate with the voters in good time.
I am humoured by some of the ConHome exiles on here suggesting Johnson should try to implicate Blair.
They are kind of screwed as a group if, even at such a time, they are relying on the Queen to be the one who is being sensible and making the rest be sensible as well. Charles has been in training his whole life, and Will is, in proper fashion, boringly sensible, but will they be able to keep a lid on the rest of them without her matriarchal authority?
I doubt the average voter could care less whether the males in the royal family wear military uniforms on Saturday or not.
In any case it is Charles and William who are next in line to the throne after the Queen, not Andrew and Harry neither of whom even perform royal duties anymore
I think you've missed my point, which was that the family members are reportedly squabbling over petty issues to the point it apparently still requires the Queen herself, no doubt hit harder than anyone by the death of her husband, to personally intervene to sort it out.
It's not about whether the public care what they wear, or what the line of succession is. It's about whether those not in the direct line damage the institution through their general behaviour, and if they can be managed without the Queen there to manage them.
It's the right decision but it really does beggar belief that The Queen has to deal with this shit on top of grieving for losing the love of her life.
The Queen is Head of State and head of the royal family so obviously she still decides on what they are allowed to do, when she dies Charles will take those roles and decide as will William when Charles dies.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
If Boris is sure he and his closest s chums are in the clear, he might even choose to unleash the hounds, and find a way to get Blair in scope.
Nobody knows where this is going
Yet to be named politicians and civil servants across the political divide may find they have questions to answer
Let me guess, Drakeford and Sturgeon will be in the frame afore we know it.
I am not predicting who but there will be surprises
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
Big G. Cameron's desperate pleas to save Greensill are very recent.
Cameron works for Greensill, Jones works for Gupta. So far so good. Cameron begged Government Ministers for money for contracts and/or cash to save Greensill, I am not aware Jones has done that.
The key to the Cameron element of any scandal is, did any Government Ministers give in to Cameron's pleas?
And did they
Innocent until proved guilty is law
I have no idea, and I have not suggested anyone in Cabinet has done anything wrong re: Cameron.
However, even Cameron has conceded the whole thing looks slightly awful, which is the bit that might resonate with the voters in good time.
I am humoured by some of the ConHome exiles on here suggesting Johnson should try to implicate Blair.
The complacency of Conservatives is tangible. Clear signs that they’ve been in power too long. Remember this with Labour and the Tories before them. Change will not come overnight, but the rot is setting in.
Lord Hogan Howe been named tonight as having been involved with Greensill Capital while advising the cabinet office
You do wonder just who and how many politicians, civil servants, and others from across the political divide will be drawn into this
Three points:-
1. Ex-senior policemen are not averse to selling themselves to the highest bidder. There was one particularly egregious example a few years ago who shilled for a particularly dodgy Ukrainian oligarch.
2.Bent Coppers BBC2 tonight is all about corruption and worse in the police force.
3. It's a red flag when a new company - the darling of the media and analysts and others - starts appointing lots of people with little experience in the sector as advisors or to its Board. It smells of a company trying to buy loyalty and silence from as many people as possible and to gull investors by having lots of these "Great and the Good" there to lend respectability. When this happens people should ask whether these people bring anything of value - any knowledge or expertise which means that they will keep management in their toes - and, if not, why they're being appointed. It's the Board equivalent of the marbled hall - a sign that the company is heading for a fall. (See, for instance, Theranos in the US.)
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Cameron is a side show, a smoke screen to mask a culture of sleaze and corruption inside Johnson's Government.
You may want to draw that conclusion but I think you will find this goes back long before Boris and involves a lot of politicians and others and of course Jeremy Heywood who has since died
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
No, the key is Cameron was schmoozing the likes of Sunak and Hancock. The last time I looked they were both in Cabinet. They may just be innocent bystanders, but Sunak's silence over the last few days has been defeaning.
I think you will find this will involve far more than contact with Rishi and Hancock and of course Boris's opponents will try to pin it on him but it was not his Government and there will be lots of twists and turns
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
Big G. Cameron's desperate pleas to save Greensill are very recent.
Cameron works for Greensill, Jones works for Gupta. So far so good. Cameron begged Government Ministers for money for contracts and/or cash to save Greensill, I am not aware Jones has done that.
The key to the Cameron element of any scandal is, did any Government Ministers give in to Cameron's pleas?
And did they
Innocent until proved guilty is law
I have no idea, and I have not suggested anyone in Cabinet has done anything wrong re: Cameron.
However, even Cameron has conceded the whole thing looks slightly awful, which is the bit that might resonate with the voters in good time.
I am humoured by some of the ConHome exiles on here suggesting Johnson should try to implicate Blair.
I did not say that
Are you a ConHome exile?
Interesting suggestion on Emma Barnett. Why not invite Blair to get shredded by McDonnell at the same time the Committee grill Dave?
Good evening from Sheffield. My first trip to England in 2 months and my first business trip away in 7 months, Its surreal - and I used to be away at least once a week
I have my first biz trip since December next week. To Oxford. Cannot WAIT!
Not to boast, but my first work trip in 8 months was by the West Highland Line to Oban and the Isle of Mull....simply glorious.
Went to Skye and Oban in 2019 - two different trips
Think that says it all. Even on my lively politics whatsapp group it hasn’t got a mention, it just seems so insignificant compared to other things happening right now, and I say that as someone who dislikes Cameron.
It doesn’t seem like something that will be in the papers come Friday either, though should get a second wind when the enquiry is over. Certainly wishful thinking it’ll have much effect on voting intention while lockdown is ending.
Think that says it all. Even on my lively politics whatsapp group it hasn’t got a mention, it just seems so insignificant compared to other things happening right now, and I say that as someone who dislikes Cameron.
It doesn’t seem like something that will be in the papers come Friday either, though should get a second wind when the enquiry is over. Certainly wishful thinking it’ll have much effect on voting intention while lockdown is ending.
I was surprised to see it getting very substantial coverage of the 10 o'clock news, and I see the Huffington Post rates it as Starmer's most effective performance with other Labour figures like Rachel Reeves (also on the news) at last showing some effectiveness in depth.
It's not the sort of story most people usually bother about, but I think you're being a bit hopeful that it will go away in 24 hours.
"Science has proved Boris Johnson wrong – vaccines are reducing deaths and cases Study reveals stark difference in figures for elderly people who have been vaccinated compared to those who have not
Phew! The scandal panic is over. Doesn't even make it to the headlines on Newsnight.
Does Emma Barnett get to spike any stories that could damage Johnson?
Just a polite question
Does anyone watch newsnight
Yes, quite often.
I like Emma Barnetts outfit tonight. Trendiest mourning clothes seen so far.
297,000 per evening on latest count - four times as many as watch Sky News, which is quite often quoted here. It's a small proportion of the electorate, but quite important in framing the current political stories.
Think that says it all. Even on my lively politics whatsapp group it hasn’t got a mention, it just seems so insignificant compared to other things happening right now, and I say that as someone who dislikes Cameron.
It doesn’t seem like something that will be in the papers come Friday either, though should get a second wind when the enquiry is over. Certainly wishful thinking it’ll have much effect on voting intention while lockdown is ending.
I was surprised to see it getting very substantial coverage of the 10 o'clock news, and I see the Huffington Post rates it as Starmer's most effective performance with other Labour figures like Rachel Reeves (also on the news) at last showing some effectiveness in depth.
It's not the sort of story most people usually bother about, but I think you're being a bit hopeful that it will go away in 24 hours.
Well if the HuffPo reckons it was effective, then all we're waiting for is the Twitter response and Buzzfeed to rank their Top 10 performances. 😂
Think that says it all. Even on my lively politics whatsapp group it hasn’t got a mention, it just seems so insignificant compared to other things happening right now, and I say that as someone who dislikes Cameron.
It doesn’t seem like something that will be in the papers come Friday either, though should get a second wind when the enquiry is over. Certainly wishful thinking it’ll have much effect on voting intention while lockdown is ending.
I was surprised to see it getting very substantial coverage of the 10 o'clock news, and I see the Huffington Post rates it as Starmer's most effective performance with other Labour figures like Rachel Reeves (also on the news) at last showing some effectiveness in depth.
It's not the sort of story most people usually bother about, but I think you're being a bit hopeful that it will go away in 24 hours.
Perhaps go away is not what I meant but I don’t think it’ll be one of the big stories because the meat of the story remains Cameron’s irregularities and I’m not necessarily sure there is any more juice that can be squeezed from that. What has been dripped by the press today regarding civil servants unrecognisable to the public is something that doesn’t capture the imagination in the same way.
I’m sure Lewis Goodall and others hope that all corruption roads lead to number 10 but I’d be very surprised if there was any smoking gun or anything that can truly distract public attention from the easing of lockdown and vaccine rollout, though perhaps I underestimate how dogged some quarters of our press can be.
The LibDems need to rebrand themselves and start again.. A different name, a different logo and a leader that doesn’t make the invisible man stand out.
What's the point? Until they decide what they're for?
The polite fiction that they could tell some voters to vote for them to stop the Tories (while simultaneously telling other voters to vote for them to stop Labour) has gone forever.
Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with the Tories? In which case why should any left wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with Labour? In which case why should any right wing voters vote for them? Are they a third party that won't go into coalition? In which case why should any voters vote for them? Are they a third party that will go into office with either party? In which case a vote by anyone doesn't "stop" the other party.
The LDs are what they have always been on the whole, a centrist and socially liberal alternative to the 2 main parties at Westminster level and a party to mend the potholes and appeal to NIMBYS in local council elections (at least that is how they present themselves) as well being a party that will continue to push for closer alignment to the SM and CU
Good evening from Sheffield. My first trip to England in 2 months and my first business trip away in 7 months, Its surreal - and I used to be away at least once a week
I have my first biz trip since December next week. To Oxford. Cannot WAIT!
Not to boast, but my first work trip in 8 months was by the West Highland Line to Oban and the Isle of Mull....simply glorious.
Boast away, you lucky bugger! If heaven isn't based on Mull, then I really don't want to go.
You should be outraged that voters don't care that your hard earned tax pounds are being thrown to greedy politicians.
Getting upset at the polls not telling you what you want to hear again?
Taxpayers who care about their money not being wasted are hardly likely to elect a Labour government.
I am stunned that you are content that your hard earned is being used for nefarious purposes.
I'm not content, I expect it. That's why I want as low taxation as possible, because its what I expect to happen to my taxes if there's money available to the Exchequer. Starve the beast, otherwise its inevitable.
Thankfully though Sunak rejected the nefarious requests, so I'm not sure what the punchline of this is meant to be. "Former PM asked for favour, Chancellor said no" shows the system is working as it should. Better than I'd expect it to in fact!
Comments
So according to myth Chiron was a half horse, half human doctor. I guess that makes him the Centaur for Disease Control. #TopicalJoke
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1234474406157717504
Andrew is a pompous, obstinate and ignorant fool but his problems are his own.
Signed - a 2010 Lib Dem voter.
Maybe just a straw in the wind? Start of a return to 'normal' politics if Covid doesn't bounce back? The public don't care abour sleaze currently, but if Labour can keep it high on the news agenda that could change.
He died before the Restoration, but was dug up and chucked in a common grave.
By all means, include New Labour- certainly post 2001. Arguably, it's the besetting sin of all British postwar politics- parties offering Scandinavian attitudes to public spending coupled with American attitudes to tax. And because nice men in respectable suits with colourful rosettes (of all colours) have offered variations on that theme, the GBP have tended to vote for it. Why shouldn't they?
But anyway... If you look at the entrepreneurial optimism of Silvio B or the 20 Tenets of Peronism, it's not obvious how they differ significantly from Johnson's Conservative Party. Not to me, anyway. And those sorts of governments tend not to end well, do they?
Still, I'm sure the ride will be fun in the meantime.
You do wonder just who and how many politicians, civil servants, and others from across the political divide will be drawn into this
Thursday’s i - “UK lobbying watchdog is...lobbyist”
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1382442550229929984
G.Gordon Liddy is a bit of an..er..character.
Indeed Lord Hogan Howe has been drawn into it tonight
The polite fiction that they could tell some voters to vote for them to stop the Tories (while simultaneously telling other voters to vote for them to stop Labour) has gone forever.
Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with the Tories? In which case why should any left wing voters vote for them?
Are they a third party that will only go into coalition with Labour? In which case why should any right wing voters vote for them?
Are they a third party that won't go into coalition? In which case why should any voters vote for them?
Are they a third party that will go into office with either party? In which case a vote by anyone doesn't "stop" the other party.
Holyrood, Stormont and Westminster all have a register of lobbyists. It is just the one Parliament that Labour control -- and have controlled since its inception -- that does not have a register of lobbyists.
Carwyn Jones said a register of lobbyists needed more thought in 2018 .... as he joined the now discredited Gupta's GFG Alliance (which is responsible for Greensill's collapse).
So, if Labour are keeping it high on the news agenda, let's hope they can bring Wales into line with the other countries in the UK?
As a bare minimum the Civil Service should have a Conflicts of Interest policy and an Outside Business Interests Policy.
If they don't I can draft them for them. I'll throw in the necessary training and the inevitable investigations as well.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1382425577412509696?s=19
Galloway, Salmond, Lozza Fox ... and now N. of Stoke.
My guess is @Leon will be forming a new party soon.
Carwyn Jones, Labour former FM in Wales has also been involved apparently
In any case it is Charles and William who are next in line to the throne after the Queen, not Andrew and Harry neither of whom even perform royal duties anymore
Cameron works for Greensill, Jones works for Gupta. So far so good. Cameron begged Government Ministers for money for contracts and/or cash to save Greensill, I am not aware Jones has done that.
The key to the Cameron element of any scandal is, did any Government Ministers give in to Cameron's pleas?
Yet to be named politicians and civil servants across the political divide may find they have questions to answer
Does Emma Barnett get to spike any stories that could damage Johnson?
That's why when he decides his father's funeral is going to be fancy dress we just roll our eyes - that sort of behaviour is priced in, indeed, it's grimly funny in a way - whereas when Megan slags off the royal family and the whole of the UK as a bunch of racists, we get a bit tetchy.
Andrew's lies are just to keep him out of trouble. Risible, but sort of understandable: Andrew is the clumsy defender protesting he never touched the player lying on the grass with stud marks on his thigh. Megan is the slinky attacker lying shrieking on the turf clutching her face when the replays show the ball hitting her in the thigh.
Innocent until proved guilty is law
It's not about whether the public care what they wear, or what the line of succession is. It's about whether those not in the direct line damage the institution through their general behaviour, and if they can be managed without the Queen there to manage them.
Or to put it more pithily
They will fight for the role of "Groom of the Stool",
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Groom-of-the-Stool/
Does anyone watch newsnight
You're just trying to use it to smear the institution, as is your wont.
But it pretty uncontroversial that many things not only need to be done right, they must be seen to be done right. That is why such a thing as apparent bias exists in respect of decision making.
And in important matters, an at best lack of care toward process and conflicts is, while not as bad as proven procedural impropriety and conflict, not good at all. Any defence relies on being utterly stupid, which is not a good position to be in. The stuff about the civil servant second jobs is flabbergasting.
I just like to enjoy the soap opera.
I like Emma Barnetts outfit tonight. Trendiest mourning clothes seen so far.
However, even Cameron has conceded the whole thing looks slightly awful, which is the bit that might resonate with the voters in good time.
I am humoured by some of the ConHome exiles on here suggesting Johnson should try to implicate Blair.
It is as simple as that
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1382454871270563849?s=19
1. Ex-senior policemen are not averse to selling themselves to the highest bidder. There was one particularly egregious example a few years ago who shilled for a particularly dodgy Ukrainian oligarch.
2.Bent Coppers BBC2 tonight is all about corruption and worse in the police force.
3. It's a red flag when a new company - the darling of the media and analysts and others - starts appointing lots of people with little experience in the sector as advisors or to its Board. It smells of a company trying to buy loyalty and silence from as many people as possible and to gull investors by having lots of these "Great and the Good" there to lend respectability. When this happens people should ask whether these people bring anything of value - any knowledge or expertise which means that they will keep management in their toes - and, if not, why they're being appointed. It's the Board equivalent of the marbled hall - a sign that the company is heading for a fall. (See, for instance, Theranos in the US.)
Have a good nights rest folks
Nos da
Interesting suggestion on Emma Barnett. Why not invite Blair to get shredded by McDonnell at the same time the Committee grill Dave?
More might take an interest if Liberty Steel goes tits up.
You should be outraged that voters don't care that your hard earned tax pounds are being thrown to greedy politicians.
Taxpayers who care about their money not being wasted are hardly likely to elect a Labour government.
It doesn’t seem like something that will be in the papers come Friday either, though should get a second wind when the enquiry is over. Certainly wishful thinking it’ll have much effect on voting intention while lockdown is ending.
https://twitter.com/themancuk/status/1382245363403390977?s=21
It's not the sort of story most people usually bother about, but I think you're being a bit hopeful that it will go away in 24 hours.
Study reveals stark difference in figures for elderly people who have been vaccinated compared to those who have not
By Sarah Knapton,
SCIENCE EDITOR"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/14/science-proves-boris-johnson-wrong-vaccines-reducing-deaths/
I’m sure Lewis Goodall and others hope that all corruption roads lead to number 10 but I’d be very surprised if there was any smoking gun or anything that can truly distract public attention from the easing of lockdown and vaccine rollout, though perhaps I underestimate how dogged some quarters of our press can be.
Thankfully though Sunak rejected the nefarious requests, so I'm not sure what the punchline of this is meant to be. "Former PM asked for favour, Chancellor said no" shows the system is working as it should. Better than I'd expect it to in fact!