Is Mark Drakeford the new Winston Churchill? – politicalbetting.com

Casino_Royale said:

Mark Drakeford looks out of time to me.

The way he looks, sounds and dresses is at least 40 years out of date; like he's a junior minister that's been plucked out of Wilson's cabinet of 1975 and temporally transported to 2021.

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Razedabode said:

If anyone is watching ridge right now - really interesting to see how flustered Sturgeon becomes at some modestly difficult questions

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin

Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly

Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?

Families often gift shares to each other

This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract

Mexicanpete said:

Great header. I have for a while thought we were looking at an Andrew RT Davies First Ministership. Despite what the polls say, Johnson vaccinated the nation, and Drakeford closed the pubs (and they are still closed) is the anecdotal response from voters. There is a lot of personal animosity towards 'teetotal' Drakeford on the latter point. I am hoping however that the Conservative corruption crisis will at least avert that calamity.

My.money is now on a Labour/PC arrangement, but Drakeford could certainly be a casualty and the Conservatives being biggest party in both votes and seats is not beyond the realms of probability.

Dura_Ace said:

ydoethur said:

Le Pen isn’t value in the French election because although she’s likely to make the final two, around 60% of the electorate will back her opponent - whoever that is - to keep her out.

According to des sondages the only candidate Le Pen can beat in the final round is Hidalgo. So you'd basically be betting that Hidalgo will make it to the last two at the expense of Macron. That needs bigger odds than 3/1.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved

Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved

Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives

It really isn't ( yet). I think you are comforting yourself with wishful thinking.

This episode would be a massively embarrassing episode that could fell any previous government, but this is a Boris Johnson Government, so none of this might gain any traction whatsoever, and we just blame Cameron, Blair, Clegg and their coalition of corrupt wokery.

MarqueeMark said:

There is much about national government, regional government, local government, large infrastructure projects, that is deeply grubby. It is filled with nepotism, favouritism, deferred employment opportunities ("do us a favour now and in a couple of years time, join us on the Board as Director of Corporate Hospitality - golf club membership of your choice thrown in....") topped with a dash of out-and-out corruption at its worst.

Unfortunately, it is the norm. Show me a government since Roman times that didn't operate this way. You may hope for better, but power attracts lobbying - because money sees it as the way of getting its way.

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

The shares were gifted to him by his sister who runs a document recycling company in Wrexham and was awarded a contract by the Welsh labour health secretary Vaughan Gethin

Furthermore Hancock was given permission to accept the gift of the shares and has declared them properly

Why would the sister gift the shares? Generous birthday present or the thought that having him as a shareholder opens doors?

Families often gift shares to each other

This is a Welsh document shredding company with a Welsh contract

People dont often give away 15% of their company, even to a sibling, with no expectations of them contributing.

Sorry but that is nonsense

Tax 'fiddle'?????

I would not suggest that it was anything but legitimate

Unless it was a Labour politico in which case you would.

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

Northern_Al said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?

Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved

Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?

Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.

And that is the point that is being missed

It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved

Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives

Marr was very aggressive with Davey. But Davey dealt with it well.

Davey has a lobbying contract with a renewables company. He believes in the cause. He doesn't lobby government. His interest is openly declared in members' interests. He needs the money to support his disabled son when Davey dies.

But Marr had successfully deflected Davey from criticising the government.

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?

Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.

And that is the point that is being missed

It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales

Thanks for the geography lesson!

I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.

My point was that whether justified or not, Ministers would be well-advised to avoid perceived (not real) conflicts of interest. But who am I to give advice to Tories?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?

Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.

And that is the point that is being missed

It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales

Thanks for the geography lesson!

I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.

My point was that whether justified or not, Ministers would be well-advised to avoid perceived (not real) conflicts of interest. But who am I to give advice to Tories?

To be honest as long as a contract is awarded on the best product, service and price then anything else is noise

DavidL said:

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

Mark Drakeford looks out of time to me.

The way he looks, sounds and dresses is at least 40 years out of date; like he's a junior minister that's been plucked out of Wilson's cabinet of 1975 and temporally transported to 2021.

Hopefully he'll give us an update on the Ford strike and the situation in Biafra before Pot Black comes on.

"For those watching in black and white the pink ball is the one behind the brown." They don't make them like that anymore.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?

Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.

And that is the point that is being missed

It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales

Thanks for the geography lesson!

I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.

My point was that whether justified or not, Ministers would be well-advised to avoid perceived (not real) conflicts of interest. But who am I to give advice to Tories?

To be honest as long as a contract is awarded on the best product, service and price then anything else is noise

IANAL but good luck using that as a defence under the Bribery Act. Not guilty because I (or they) would have won the contract anyway.

YBarddCwsc said:

Northern_Al said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?

Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.

And that is the point that is being missed

It is a commercial document shredding business based in Wrexham which is in Wales

Thanks for the geography lesson!

I never said it was a pharmaceutical company. The pertinent point is that it has bid for NHS contracts; the fact that the one it won is in Wales is only marginally relevant.

Of course it is not "marginally relevant". Unless you think Wales is part of England.

Theuniondivvie said:

Hands up everyone who enjoyed the slitty eye comment?

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1383710957122121734?s=21

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Hands up everyone who enjoyed the slitty eye comment?

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1383710957122121734?s=21

You might want to review the, erm, snooker joke you made a couple of comments back. Even the Duke of Edinburgh might have blanched at that, at least post-1970.

noneoftheabove said:

MarqueeMark said:

There is much about national government, regional government, local government, large infrastructure projects, that is deeply grubby. It is filled with nepotism, favouritism, deferred employment opportunities ("do us a favour now and in a couple of years time, join us on the Board as Director of Corporate Hospitality - golf club membership of your choice thrown in....") topped with a dash of out-and-out corruption at its worst.

Unfortunately, it is the norm. Show me a government since Roman times that didn't operate this way. You may hope for better, but power attracts lobbying - because money sees it as the way of getting its way.

Agreed, but it needs a sweep every decade or two. It won't stop it, but it can stop it getting worse and worse.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Hands up everyone who enjoyed the slitty eye comment?

https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1383710957122121734?s=21

You might want to review the, erm, snooker joke you made a couple of comments back. Even the Duke of Edinburgh might have blanched at that, at least post-1970.

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, stupendous tip by @TSE - very well spotted.

A very likely loser but it feels more like a 8/1 shot to me, so I've gone in at 25/1.

OldKingCole said:

moonshine said:

OldKingCole said:

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, one of the best short stories I ever wrote was me versus a spider.

https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/552983/

It's said that the way to keep spiders away is to scatter conkers about. We've had very few since putting a couple outside our front door. Need replacing in autumn, of course.

My Nan used to swear by this. When it came to nature she knew her stuff, she could even make an intoxicating drink from dandelions.

Hence your nom de plume? One can of course ferment almost anything,particularly vegetable. Some commentator on the TV the other day was talking bewailing the lack of cowslips to make cowslip wine.

When I started going to Lancashire I discover3ed that some of my prospective relations drank a (non-alcoholic) brew called dandelion and burdock.

YBarddCwsc said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Hey, ho.

For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.

As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.

The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.

The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.

£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?

Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.

That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved

Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives

It really isn't ( yet). I think you are comforting yourself with wishful thinking.

This episode would be a massively embarrassing episode that could fell any previous government, but this is a Boris Johnson Government, so none of this might gain any traction whatsoever, and we just blame Cameron, Blair, Clegg and their coalition of corrupt wokery.

Not really

Maybe watch Marr on playback

Dura_Ace said:

Have we done this one yet? I'm losing track.

https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1383526585916002311

kjh said:

YBarddCwsc said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Hey, ho.

For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.

As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.

The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.

The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.

£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?

Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.

That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.

Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.

In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.

kjh said:

YBarddCwsc said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Hey, ho.

For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.

As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.

The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.

The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.

£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?

Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.

That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.

Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.

In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.

Time_to_Leave said:

kjh said:

YBarddCwsc said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Hey, ho.

For as long as the Senedd does not even have a register of lobbyists, then I am not going to listen sympathetically to high-minded lectures about corruption from Labour party supporters.

As there is so much interest in possible corruption in Wales, lemme tell you a story of two airports.

The first is a failing airport in Scotland. Prestwick was bought by the Scottish Government for £1. Whether it was a good commercial decision or not, I cannot tell -- but it was not costly. It was a cheap valuation.

The second is a failing airport in Wales. Rhoose was bought by the Welsh Government for £ 52 million pounds. The airport has never made money -- even before the pandemic.

£1 versus £52 million pounds. Who made the valuations for these failing airports?

Shall we say, someone not unconnected with Welsh Labour made a huge amount of money on the transaction.

That kinda puts a 15 per cent share in a document shredding company in Wrecsam that got a contract with NHS Wales for £150k over 3 years into perspective.

Surely this shouldn't be a competition as to who is more corrupt. It doesn't make it alright to be a little corrupt because someone else is more corrupt.

In fact there doesn't even have to be corruption for there to be an issue. There is no evidence Matt Hancock is corrupt. No doubt Matt Hancock isn't corrupt at all, but it is immensely stupid not to realize that the person in charge of the NHS should not hold a 15% stake in an NHS approved supplier. That is a potential conflict in Interest and should be avoided.

The problem with the latter is that, given the size and scope of the NHS and what it buys, you’re basically saying the Health Secretary must not knowingly own shares in ANY company (including taking an interest in, for example, a pension portfolio).

However, under our system, ministerial roles change frequently and unexpectedly, so you’d have to say that no one who MIGHT become Health Secretary can have any active interest in shares.

All in a model where ministers don’t take decisions on contracts.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved

Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives

Marr was very aggressive with Davey. But Davey dealt with it well.

Davey has a lobbying contract with a renewables company. He believes in the cause. He doesn't lobby government. His interest is openly declared in members' interests. He needs the money to support his disabled son when Davey dies.

But Marr had successfully deflected Davey from criticising the government.

The thing is, most (though I'm sure not all) of the stories about the government also have reasonable explanations like his when examined closely. Perhaps his own experience of virtuous lobbying (and the criticism it attracts from the press) will make him more open the idea that others may be in a similar position?

CorrectHorseBattery said:

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1383726023481511936

Knowing BoJo he's going to end up being linked to it.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MaxPB said:

Bit of a sore head this morning!

London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.

In May and June it might be warm enough to put ice cream in your Guinness. Embrace your inner child! (And hold the glass the right way up.)

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MaxPB said:

Bit of a sore head this morning!

London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.

In May and June it might be warm enough to put ice cream in your Guinness. Embrace your inner child! (And hold the glass the right way up.)

I didn't think there was anything worse than pineapple on pizza.

But now!!!!!!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved

Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives

Fysics_Teacher said:

OldKingCole said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

MaxPB said:

Bit of a sore head this morning!

London was absolutely buzzing last night. Happy to be out again but can't wait until May and June unlockdown now. Life is still missing something without proper indoor socialising and late night bars/clubs.

In May and June it might be warm enough to put ice cream in your Guinness. Embrace your inner child! (And hold the glass the right way up.)

I didn't think there was anything worse than pineapple on pizza.

But now!!!!!!

A quick Google search got this recipe for Guiness ice cream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmTZ404V2H0

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Andrew Marr sighting Carwyn Jones as being in breach of government rules to Rachel Reeves and her answer this is only about the conservatives

And she says there are different rules in Wales

Marr is really having a go at the hypocrisy of Reeves and Labour and she is not coming over well at all

BigG. from what I have seen or heard Carwyn's association, because it is with Gupta might be a bit whiffy, but it smells nothing like the rest of the news relating directly or indirectly to Gupta and his business associates.

That was not the impression Marr painted this morning and to be honest I was surprised how aggressive he was to both Rachel Reeves and Ed Davey in their own party involvement in lobbying and Ed Davey personally involved

Many have said on here that this is a threat to the conservatives but if Marr's information and comments are to be believed this is more than just the conservatives

The BBC are all of a panic. How do they remain impartial when they have a Government scandal to report?

It's like Johnson and the Cenotaph. The BBC can't report Johnson being a dick, that would be partial, so they substitute footage of him being a cock, with old footage of him not being a cock. Impartiality equilibrium restored.

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Northern_Al said:

DavidL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

IanB2 said:

Allegations that politicians and advisers at the centre of power today may be using public positions – intentionally or unintentionally – to benefit their private interests are surfacing and being trawled over in the media. “Johnson may have made a big mistake here with this big inquiry,” said one Tory MP. “Something this big and wide is the last thing any government needs.”

The dangers for government are becoming clearer by the day. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, who met Cameron and Greensill for a drink during which they lobbied him over a potential contract, came under scrutiny over his shareholding in a family firm approved to bid for NHS contracts. He insists he has broken no rules.

Two of Johnson’s most senior advisers – his deputy chief of staff Simone Finn, and Francis Maude, who has been conducting an unremunerated review of civil service reform for the prime minister – are facing questions over whether their private financial interests are advanced by their public roles.

Cameron’s defenders say he has no interest in taking revenge for the Greensill leaks. But he may not need to. There is already a sense that if those who leaked against him were doing so from inside government, the tactic has misfired. “If they thought it would stop with Cameron then they were plain stupid. This could now end up exploding on their own government,” said a senior figure who has straddled the Cameron, Theresa May and Johnson premierships in Whitehall.

There are now no fewer than seven disparate inquiries into Greensill and wider lobbying issues. Lobbying rules now look certain to be tightened. Suddenly, as a result of the Greensill-Cameron affair and the fallout from it, the political mood in Westminster has changed. The Tories are reeling while Labour – which had seemed to lack a line of attack since the turn of the year as Conservative fortunes rebounded thanks to the successful vaccine roll-out – has an issue to focus on that it knows could damage Johnson, his government and his party.

Interesting that the Matt Hancock story is still being quoted without the minor detail that the contract was with the Welsh NHS over which he has no control.

Also that it is a family company of which he has no managerial influence or control and that he got approval for the transfer of the shares in advance. It really is a complete non story.

I'm (fairly) sure you're right, but don't you think perceptions count? If I were Hancock, I'd have said to my sister - 'thanks for the offer, but it wouldn't be wise for me to accept these shares while I'm SoS for health - I know there's nothing dodgy, but others may think that there is'. Surely it's at least a misjudgment? Wouldn't a wise Minister avoid the risk by simply staying away from any potential health-related share ownings until they move on to a new job?

Its a document shredding business, not a pharmaceutical company.

Mud sticks, sometimes unfortunately.