"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
That's right: has any government inherited a legacy as golden as that left by Major and Clarke?
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
That's right: has any government inherited a legacy as golden as that left by Major and Clarke?
Arguably Merkel also benefitted from similarly tough decisions taken by the previous government.
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
The clown is an asset at election time but an abject liability when it comes to governing effectively.
The Tories need to decide quickly whether they want the clown in charge at the next election, or not.
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
46% of the public do not believe either of them
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
That's right: has any government inherited a legacy as golden as that left by Major and Clarke?
To top off the gift their Party was hopelessly divided, mired in sleaze, incompetent and generally out of tune with the times. So they couldn't win. What a kind and generous legacy indeed!
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
The clown is an asset at election time but an abject liability when it comes to governing effectively.
The Tories need to decide quickly whether they want the clown in charge at the next election, or not.
OT browser news -- the latest Chrome update has broken popups on some sites, so if you encounter this problem, try another browser. The issue is that per standards, sites are supposed to use hyphens in the names of popups but many just use the name popup, which Chrome has decided to process differently.
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
I think you are being a bit of a “wise monkey” there, Big G.
Assuming he overcomes this latest round of petty dishonesties, all the evidence suggests that Boris is not far from the next toxic lie.
Eventually - could be next week, could be next decade - his fabulism will see him fall.
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
Of course Johnson is "popular with the public"... He spends all his time working for cheap instant headlines to make everybody feel good - especially himself.
If he spent a fraction of that time facing up to the real problems the citizens of this country are facing - and even finding a solution for some of them - we would all be much better off.
I think the main problem that we face is loss of trust in the government, and indeed in everybody in positions of authority.
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
46% of the public do not believe either of them
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
But he is not wise
Like Mercer, he would have been wise to #savethesurprise
Nevertheless his account is a lot more credible than the clown’s.
As you would have readily accepted, prior to your Damascus trip late in 2019.
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
Yes Boris is popular but also dishonest. Whether he is a Conservative can be debated another day.
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
The clown is an asset at election time but an abject liability when it comes to governing effectively.
The Tories need to decide quickly whether they want the clown in charge at the next election, or not.
There is plenty of time for that consideration
Only if you put the Tory Party ahead of the country.
Read what I said. Read what you said. What other interpretation is there?
And the Oscar for Defending the indefensible goes to BigG.
I know you must be disappointed but really you think some alleged remark in a private office after a meeting, overhead by someone who has no evidence, is defending the indefensible than it is
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
I think you are being a bit of a “wise monkey” there, Big G.
Assuming he overcomes this latest round of petty dishonesties, all the evidence suggests that Boris is not far from the next toxic lie.
Eventually - could be next week, could be next decade - his fabulism will see him fall.
I am not disagreeing with you but it has to be something better than we heard in the HOC today
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
46% of the public do not believe either of them
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
But he is not wise
I simply don't get Cummings' play here. What does he expect to get out of fighting back? What potential client would want to hire him now, given this behaviour, regardless of the rights of his position?
Is he acting simply out of ego and righteous anger? Because there does not seem to be any logic that would see this course of action helps Cummings in any way.
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
Of course Johnson is "popular with the public"... He spends all his time working for cheap instant headlines to make everybody feel good - especially himself.
If he spent a fraction of that time facing up to the real problems the citizens of this country are facing - and even finding a solution for some of them - we would all be much better off.
I think the main problem that we face is loss of trust in the government, and indeed in everybody in positions of authority.
You do not get any better than a world class vaccine rollout to the British people saving lives and opening the economy much earlier than was expected
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
Will Rogerdamus strike again? Johnson rule for the next 35 years confirmed?
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
46% of the public do not believe either of them
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
But he is not wise
Like Mercer, he would have been wise to #savethesurprise
Nevertheless his account is a lot more credible than the clown’s.
As you would have readily accepted, prior to your Damascus trip late in 2019.
No according to the public who back Boris at 22% and Cummings at 16%
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
The clown is an asset at election time but an abject liability when it comes to governing effectively.
The Tories need to decide quickly whether they want the clown in charge at the next election, or not.
There is plenty of time for that consideration
Only if you put the Tory Party ahead of the country.
Read what I said. Read what you said. What other interpretation is there?
Your first sentence is assumed that the conservative party is not good for the country and on that I disagree
A fascinating re-imagining of the events of 1997 from some presumably too young to have experienced that more interesting period in British politics.
The events of what some called "Black" Wednesday and Andrew Neil always called "White" Wednesday destroyed in one day the Conservative asset of sound economic management. It was analogous to the 1967 Devaluation - it brought the Conservatives down to Labour's level and in truth they never recovered.
In 1995 the Conservatives lost 2000 Councillors in a single night - that foreshadowed the events of 1997.
Would it have been the same had Smith lived? We'll never so but Blair went further and by 1997 he had convinced millions of former Conservative voters the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left and whether via a direct change of vote or by voting for the LDs or staying at home, the Conservative vote which had so strongly propelled Major to victory in 1992 withered away.
There were Conservatives, who, despite the local election losses, couldn't believe what was happening, People weren't slamming doors on Tory canvassers or setting the dog on anyone delivering a Tory leaflet - no, they smiled politely and knifed the Conservative Party the only place that mattered - in the polling booth.
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
Into the 2030s I think.
The only pressure to move this PM is if it looks like the opposition can win a GE from about 18 months out, when you factor in how far behind in seats realistic coalition government is, how opposition parties will neatly divid up votes with each other not take them from Boris.
The vaccination programme beat COVID. It saved UK lives and economy. It put BREXIT Britain leading the world as promised. And it was all down to Boris and his government making decisions on vaccine procurement and jab logistics - the key decision being not to allow NHS to do it.
Meanwhile the opposition parties wanted us in the EU in the same vaccine scheme as Brussels, lives lost, businesses lost. Does any opposition party seriously expect a vote for them in the next 9 years?
When Mystic Rose said the vaccination programme is the most marvellous achievement of any UK government in decades ensures Boris is re elected she took stick, but she was just more ahead of game than rest of you. As she normally is. If I funded a free school I would make her head.
This PM and government is exactly what the electorate have been wanting for decades. They are doing a good job.
Someone with a bin on his head has more character the the leader of the opposition.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
2001 was my first election, nothing could have been more boring than that one.
You got that right, bro!
The 2001 GE was the only British election to occur when yours truly was actually in the UK. (Obviously some issues with border security even back then!) Sadly, it was dull as dishwater.
Among the very few items to relieve the boredom:
> seeing John Prescott decking the punk who threw the egg at him (saw this on TV before leaving).
> listening to Charles Kennedy being interviewed on the radio while cruising about England's green & pleasant land; what a great voice and he had a great election that year.
> looking longingly at pictures of ffion Hague which was about the only positive thing about her hubby's hapless death march of a campaign.
> trying to keep my distance from flocks of sheep, in the midst of the Mad Cow crisis, and wading though MANY troughs of disinfectant visiting sites along Hadrian's Wall.
> chatting with the only poll worker at a polling places in Devises constituency, was there for maybe half and hour, no voters showed up in that interval but a bobbie did, and joked about how UK wasn't Florida; of course that was in the good old days before BJ turned No. 10 into Mar-el-Lardo East.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
2001 was my first election, nothing could have been more boring than that one.
You got that right, bro!
The 2001 GE was the only British election to occur when yours truly was actually in the UK. (Obviously some issues with border security even back then!) Sadly, it was dull as dishwater.
Among the very few items to relieve the boredom:
> seeing John Prescott decking the punk who threw the egg at him (saw this on TV before leaving).
> listening to Charles Kennedy being interviewed on the radio while cruising about England's green & pleasant land; what a great voice and he had a great election that year.
> looking longingly at pictures of ffion Hague which was about the only positive thing about her hubby's hapless death march of a campaign.
> trying to keep my distance from flocks of sheep, in the midst of the Mad Cow crisis, and wading though MANY troughs of disinfectant visiting sites along Hadrian's Wall.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
That's right: has any government inherited a legacy as golden as that left by Major and Clarke?
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
2001 was my first election, nothing could have been more boring than that one.
You got that right, bro!
The 2001 GE was the only British election to occur when yours truly was actually in the UK. (Obviously some issues with border security even back then!) Sadly, it was dull as dishwater.
Among the very few items to relieve the boredom:
> seeing John Prescott decking the punk who threw the egg at him (saw this on TV before leaving).
> listening to Charles Kennedy being interviewed on the radio while cruising about England's green & pleasant land; what a great voice and he had a great election that year.
> looking longingly at pictures of ffion Hague which was about the only positive thing about her hubby's hapless death march of a campaign.
> trying to keep my distance from flocks of sheep, in the midst of the Mad Cow crisis, and wading though MANY troughs of disinfectant visiting sites along Hadrian's Wall.
Foot and Mouth, not Mad Cow.
I stand corrected - thanks. (I get your meat-related public-health emergencies mixed up.)
Someone mentioned that John Major got the most votes of any party leader ever. Mad as I am I decided to come up with a little table of the best vote shares achieved by each Labour and Tory leader at an election since 1945 ranking them 1 to 21. Prepare for some surprises.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
2001 was my first election, nothing could have been more boring than that one.
You got that right, bro!
The 2001 GE was the only British election to occur when yours truly was actually in the UK. (Obviously some issues with border security even back then!) Sadly, it was dull as dishwater.
Among the very few items to relieve the boredom:
> seeing John Prescott decking the punk who threw the egg at him (saw this on TV before leaving).
> listening to Charles Kennedy being interviewed on the radio while cruising about England's green & pleasant land; what a great voice and he had a great election that year.
> looking longingly at pictures of ffion Hague which was about the only positive thing about her hubby's hapless death march of a campaign.
> trying to keep my distance from flocks of sheep, in the midst of the Mad Cow crisis, and wading though MANY troughs of disinfectant visiting sites along Hadrian's Wall.
Foot and Mouth, not Mad Cow.
I stand corrected - thanks. (I get your meat-related public-health emergencies mixed up.)
Live in the big city (sort of) but am still a country boy at heart. So was (and still am) very sorry for the farmers & other who lost and suffered so much.
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
46% of the public do not believe either of them
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
But he is not wise
I simply don't get Cummings' play here. What does he expect to get out of fighting back? What potential client would want to hire him now, given this behaviour, regardless of the rights of his position?
Is he acting simply out of ego and righteous anger? Because there does not seem to be any logic that would see this course of action helps Cummings in any way.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
2001 was my first election, nothing could have been more boring than that one.
You got that right, bro!
The 2001 GE was the only British election to occur when yours truly was actually in the UK. (Obviously some issues with border security even back then!) Sadly, it was dull as dishwater.
Among the very few items to relieve the boredom:
> seeing John Prescott decking the punk who threw the egg at him (saw this on TV before leaving).
> listening to Charles Kennedy being interviewed on the radio while cruising about England's green & pleasant land; what a great voice and he had a great election that year.
> looking longingly at pictures of ffion Hague which was about the only positive thing about her hubby's hapless death march of a campaign.
> trying to keep my distance from flocks of sheep, in the midst of the Mad Cow crisis, and wading though MANY troughs of disinfectant visiting sites along Hadrian's Wall.
Foot and Mouth, not Mad Cow.
I stand corrected - thanks. (I get your meat-related public-health emergencies mixed up.)
‘Mad Cow Disease’ (which the Americans call ‘Staggers’) isn’t infectious. So you wouldn’t have needed to disinfect your shoes to control an outbreak.
FMD, on the other hand, is highly infectious and spreads through fomites as well. It was a disease that ran riot in 2001 first by the failure of a dodgy meat plant to boil their swill properly, second by the EU subsidy system that meant infected pigs were being hurriedly passed from farm to farm, and exacerbated by the gross incompetence of MAFF/DEFRA under first Nick Brown and then Beckett, who had no clue what they were doing (and showed no signs of learning lessons either).
The election may have been boring but to me, living in a farming area, the background was anything but.
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
So was Gerald Ratner until he wasn't. It takes a while for these things to filter through. The only interesting question is Gove's involvement. He was the most devious leaker in the party. Everything he does has a motive. His denial tonight is the death knell for Johnson! It won't be instant. People aren't that interested in politics. Remember Read or listen to Peter Oborne presently on Channel 4. About as damning as it gets
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
1997 was my first general election and I voted Tory.
I'll always remember it, I was doing my A Levels at the time (a time when A Levels were hard), whilst my focus was on my exams I took a very deep interest in the election, I was expecting a Labour majority of 100, I wasn't expecting one closer to 200.
I was up for Portillo, I was up when the Tories were wiped out in Scotland & Wales, I was up for when my own rock solid Tory seat went to the yellow peril.
It had a profound impact on me.
2001 was my first election, nothing could have been more boring than that one.
You got that right, bro!
The 2001 GE was the only British election to occur when yours truly was actually in the UK. (Obviously some issues with border security even back then!) Sadly, it was dull as dishwater.
Among the very few items to relieve the boredom:
> seeing John Prescott decking the punk who threw the egg at him (saw this on TV before leaving).
> listening to Charles Kennedy being interviewed on the radio while cruising about England's green & pleasant land; what a great voice and he had a great election that year.
> looking longingly at pictures of ffion Hague which was about the only positive thing about her hubby's hapless death march of a campaign.
> trying to keep my distance from flocks of sheep, in the midst of the Mad Cow crisis, and wading though MANY troughs of disinfectant visiting sites along Hadrian's Wall.
Foot and Mouth, not Mad Cow.
I stand corrected - thanks. (I get your meat-related public-health emergencies mixed up.)
‘Mad Cow Disease’ (which the Americans call ‘Staggers’) isn’t infectious. So you wouldn’t have needed to disinfect your shoes to control an outbreak.
FMD, on the other hand, is highly infectious and spreads through fomites as well. It was a disease that ran riot in 2001 first by the failure of a dodgy meat plant to boil their swill properly, second by the EU subsidy system that meant infected pigs were being hurriedly passed from farm to farm, and exacerbated by the gross incompetence of DEFRA under first Nick Brown and then Beckett, who had no clue what they were doing (and showed no signs of learning lessons either).
The election may have been boring but to me, living in a farming area, the background was anything but.
It was heartbreaking. Cruising around rural England (my strategy when driving in Britain is to avoid cities & even sizable towns as much as humanly possible) it looked serene - except for signs everywhere and constant news & talk on the radio.
Some of the places I wanted to visit were closed. And on one occasion changed my route, because the side road I planned to take was marked "please don't drive here" by the locals.
"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
The European Commission - the EU's executive branch - said it was suing the company for not respecting its vaccine supply contract, and for not having a "reliable" plan to ensure timely deliveries.
AstraZeneca said the move was "without merit".
It said it would "strongly defend itself in court".
This has turned into the international equivalent of when you hear those stories of two neighbours who has a falling out and before you know it they are burning down each others gardens.
Having seen the contracts, I would be very surprised if it actually got anywhere near a court of law. My guess is that there will be a "symbolic" victory where the EU announces that they have won. When, in fact, all they have done is pissed off an entity who might otherwise have made significant investments in the bloc.
The case is being brought in Belgium before Belgian courts. Is this as stipulated in the contract, Robert?
Does anyone know how such cases typically proceed in Belgium - does it follow pretty much the same course as we'd expect in the US and UK, or is it completely different?
The contract stipulates Belgium, but I don't think that's really relevant here. The reality is that this case wouldn't come to court for some time, and what the EU wants to do is to declare victory. Announcing you're suing, then announcing that AZ has "folded" is a PR win.
It is also spectacularly short-sighted. But we've seen a lot of spectacularly short-sighted stuff from the EU in the last 12 months.
"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
Do they want AZ to compensate for the reputational damage suffered by the EU for vaccinating more slowly than its peers?
They want a distraction.
Yes. There is no real interest in compensation, only in being seen to have bested an evil corporation that sold to other people (who paid more for early access) before the EU.
Which is why it will be settled for a nominal sum long before any laundry is aired in public.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
That's right: has any government inherited a legacy as golden as that left by Major and Clarke?
Arguably Merkel also benefitted from similarly tough decisions taken by the previous government.
Yes, the Schroeder labour market reforms were copied wholesale from the UK. Merkel benefited hugely from taking over at a time when the German labour market had just been liberalised.
I don’t understand why it matters that the Tory party gave Boris a loan for his renovation.
Why should we care?
He’s a big fat liar. We already knew that.
It doesn’t matter.
It's much less concerning that the Tory party made the loan than, say, a Russian oligarch or Sanjeev Gupta. After all one expects the PM to be in hock to his party.
"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
Do they want AZ to compensate for the reputational damage suffered by the EU for vaccinating more slowly than its peers?
They want a distraction.
Yes. There is no real interest in compensation, only in being seen to have bested an evil corporation that sold to other people (who paid more for early access) before the EU.
Which is why it will be settled for a nominal sum long before any laundry is aired in public.
Quite. It's pretty blatant really, since what is the main gripe? That AZ did not provide enough doses on time (has anyone, though them particularly I suppose). Would a lawsuit change the flow of time to change that? No. So its not about making them deliver on their promises, since that's impossible. Nor is it about delivering in future, since they don't seem to care about receiving or using much of the AZ stock. So PR it is.
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
46% of the public do not believe either of them
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
But he is not wise
I simply don't get Cummings' play here. What does he expect to get out of fighting back? What potential client would want to hire him now, given this behaviour, regardless of the rights of his position?
Is he acting simply out of ego and righteous anger? Because there does not seem to be any logic that would see this course of action helps Cummings in any way.
Hell hath no fury.....you're seeing it from an American perspective. Money is rarely a motivator for those who aren't short of it in the UK. He's got every right to be pissed off with Johnson and from all we know of him he won't give up till he's got his revenge. And he's very good at the art of persuasion. Very good. He makes Steve Hilton look flat footed and ordinary.
Interesting BBC headline of 'PM said bodies "could pile high" instead of lockdown', even as in the story they are clear he has denied it. Would have been very easy to say something about it being claimed he said it, or even lead with 'PM denies "pile bodies high" comment'. Suggests they must be confident in it.
"Final remedies focus on reparation through performance or restoration. If these remedies are not or no longer possible, the most common remedy is financial compensation.
"Belgian law adheres to the principle of restitutio in integrum, which requires that the injured party be put in the position it would have been in had the damage not occurred. Punitive damages are not allowed. The injured party is entitled to full compensation of its damage, but nothing more.
"When the exact amount of damages is difficult to determine (for example, in cases of reputational damage or violation of moral rights), the judge can award damages on an ex aequo et bono basis (that is, according to the right and good)."
Give it time.....Boris Johnson's duplicity and dishonesty was known to every Tory MP. It's all there in Alan Duncan's book. You can go round with a fire extinguisher all you like until it become out of control but it seems a terrible waste of time. He's a wrong 'un and it's only a matter of time until Tory voters get their moral compasses back and he's out on his ear.
No fire extinguishers needed
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
Into the 2030s I think.
The only pressure to move this PM is if it looks like the opposition can win a GE from about 18 months out, when you factor in how far behind in seats realistic coalition government is, how opposition parties will neatly divid up votes with each other not take them from Boris.
The vaccination programme beat COVID. It saved UK lives and economy. It put BREXIT Britain leading the world as promised. And it was all down to Boris and his government making decisions on vaccine procurement and jab logistics - the key decision being not to allow NHS to do it.
Meanwhile the opposition parties wanted us in the EU in the same vaccine scheme as Brussels, lives lost, businesses lost. Does any opposition party seriously expect a vote for them in the next 9 years?
When Mystic Rose said the vaccination programme is the most marvellous achievement of any UK government in decades ensures Boris is re elected she took stick, but she was just more ahead of game than rest of you. As she normally is. If I funded a free school I would make her head.
This PM and government is exactly what the electorate have been wanting for decades. They are doing a good job.
Someone with a bin on his head has more character the the leader of the opposition.
Did Mysticrose elope with Byronic? They deserved each other, and would have been truly happy, making such absurd wide of the mark predictions to each other until the end of time.
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
46% of the public do not believe either of them
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
But he is not wise
I simply don't get Cummings' play here. What does he expect to get out of fighting back? What potential client would want to hire him now, given this behaviour, regardless of the rights of his position?
Is he acting simply out of ego and righteous anger? Because there does not seem to be any logic that would see this course of action helps Cummings in any way.
Cummings always seemed to value himself far more than his boss. Whatever one thinks of him, or Boris, that does make him seem particularly ill suited to be an adviser, knowing he will not take flak and go quietly in the first place, and that he will be recording things and making notes to screw his employers later if he feels it warranted.
It's be like hiring a firefighter who wouldn't put himself at risk by running into a burning building. And who was also an arsonist.
President @VonDerLeyen has strong words about #SofaGate in a discussion at EU Parliament - while President Michel is sitting next to her (he has still not really apologised for remaining seated in Ankara).
"This just shows us why we need more women in positions of power"
"I am the first woman to be president of the European Commission,"
"I am the president of the European Commission and this is how I expected to be treated when visiting Turkey two weeks ago - like a Commission president. But I was not."
"I cannot find any justification for what I was treated in the European treaties,"
"So i have to conclude that it happened because I am a woman. Would this have happened if I had worn a suit and a tie?"
I don’t understand why it matters that the Tory party gave Boris a loan for his renovation.
Why should we care?
He’s a big fat liar. We already knew that.
It doesn’t matter.
It's much less concerning that the Tory party made the loan than, say, a Russian oligarch or Sanjeev Gupta. After all one expects the PM to be in hock to his party.
Well maybe, but what if the party was just the intermediary for the oligarchs!
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
As I said in the other thread, you're clearly missing the point deliberately.
Either there are rules about pseudo political donations to avoid allegations of undue influence and conflicts of interest that apply equally, or there are not.
Boris knows the rules so there's no excuse.
If you want a free for all on political donations, feel free to argue that, but otherwise Boris, as Prime Minister, should follow the rules.
I make no comment on the seriousness of the matter, but he should still follow the rules.
Boris Johnson follow the rules? Don't make us larf!
Might as well ask BoJo's soulmate Trumpsky to follow the rules. Two rotten peas in a toxic pod.
Nah, Boris was too lazy to even mildly fiddle his taxes.
Do other PBers believe that Boris Johnson is innocent of having "fiddled with his taxes" or (like Trumpsky) getting someone to do it for him?
President @VonDerLeyen has strong words about #SofaGate in a discussion at EU Parliament - while President Michel is sitting next to her (he has still not really apologised for remaining seated in Ankara).
"This just shows us why we need more women in positions of power"
"I am the first woman to be president of the European Commission,"
"I am the president of the European Commission and this is how I expected to be treated when visiting Turkey two weeks ago - like a Commission president. But I was not."
"I cannot find any justification for what I was treated in the European treaties,"
"So i have to conclude that it happened because I am a woman. Would this have happened if I had worn a suit and a tie?"
Peston is reporting that the Tory Party gave a loan to the PM to pay for Downing Street refurbishment
So some wealthy benefactors donated cash to the Tory Party in order for the Party to lend it to Johnson on very reasonable terms.Hmmm?
To be honest, I couldn't really care a great deal over the profligate and ostentatious decoration of Number 11 Downing Street, although I am quite enjoying the spectacle ofJohnson squirming like he has a rectum full of haemorrhoids.
Interesting BBC headline of 'PM said bodies "could pile high" instead of lockdown', even as in the story they are clear he has denied it. Would have been very easy to say something about it being claimed he said it, or even lead with 'PM denies "pile bodies high" comment'. Suggests they must be confident in it.
There’s a very different emphasis in what the BBC report and what the Mail reported which would be far more damaging.
President @VonDerLeyen has strong words about #SofaGate in a discussion at EU Parliament - while President Michel is sitting next to her (he has still not really apologised for remaining seated in Ankara).
"This just shows us why we need more women in positions of power"
"I am the first woman to be president of the European Commission,"
"I am the president of the European Commission and this is how I expected to be treated when visiting Turkey two weeks ago - like a Commission president. But I was not."
"I cannot find any justification for what I was treated in the European treaties,"
"So i have to conclude that it happened because I am a woman. Would this have happened if I had worn a suit and a tie?"
I think it's because they have five or something presidents. Putting one chair was likely deliberate, but they didn't force Charles Michel to pounce on it as soon as he saw it.
I don’t understand why it matters that the Tory party gave Boris a loan for his renovation.
Why should we care?
He’s a big fat liar. We already knew that.
It doesn’t matter.
It's much less concerning that the Tory party made the loan than, say, a Russian oligarch or Sanjeev Gupta. After all one expects the PM to be in hock to his party.
Well maybe, but what if the party was just the intermediary for the oligarchs!
Isn't that what they call "pass through"? Very common in political circles.
Big donor give donation earmarked for specific purpose, which is NOT disclosed, except that the money ends up where it was intended to end up.
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
As I said in the other thread, you're clearly missing the point deliberately.
Either there are rules about pseudo political donations to avoid allegations of undue influence and conflicts of interest that apply equally, or there are not.
Boris knows the rules so there's no excuse.
If you want a free for all on political donations, feel free to argue that, but otherwise Boris, as Prime Minister, should follow the rules.
I make no comment on the seriousness of the matter, but he should still follow the rules.
Boris Johnson follow the rules? Don't make us larf!
Might as well ask BoJo's soulmate Trumpsky to follow the rules. Two rotten peas in a toxic pod.
Nah, Boris was too lazy to even mildly fiddle his taxes.
Do other PBers believe that Boris Johnson is innocent of having "fiddled with his taxes" or (like Trumpsky) getting someone to do it for him?
I was referring to when he was challenged to release his tax returns by Livingstone, showing he had not, as far as I recall, employed common tax avoidance techniques as Ken had alleged.
President @VonDerLeyen has strong words about #SofaGate in a discussion at EU Parliament - while President Michel is sitting next to her (he has still not really apologised for remaining seated in Ankara).
"This just shows us why we need more women in positions of power"
"I am the first woman to be president of the European Commission,"
"I am the president of the European Commission and this is how I expected to be treated when visiting Turkey two weeks ago - like a Commission president. But I was not."
"I cannot find any justification for what I was treated in the European treaties,"
"So i have to conclude that it happened because I am a woman. Would this have happened if I had worn a suit and a tie?"
Interesting BBC headline of 'PM said bodies "could pile high" instead of lockdown', even as in the story they are clear he has denied it. Would have been very easy to say something about it being claimed he said it, or even lead with 'PM denies "pile bodies high" comment'. Suggests they must be confident in it.
There’s a very different emphasis in what the BBC report and what the Mail reported which would be far more damaging.
Except I don't think most people seeing the former will actually think much differently to those seeing the latter. The broad strokes, and what he will be accused of saying, will stick even if there is quite a difference between the precise nature of the comments.
1. John Major – 14,093,007 (1992) 2. Boris Johnson – 13,966,454 (2019) 3. Clement Attlee – 13,948,385 (1951) 4. Margaret Thatcher – 13,760,583 (1987) 5. Harold MacMillan – 13,750,875 (1959) 6. Winston Churchill – 13,717,851 (1951) 7. Theresa May – 13,636,684 (2017) 8. Tony Blair – 13,518,167 (1997) 9. Anthony Eden – 13,310,891 (1955) 10. Edward Heath – 13,145,123 (1970) 11. Harold Wilson – 13,096,951 (1966) 12. Jeremy Corbyn – 12,878,460 (2017) 13. Hugh Gaitskell – 12,216,172 (1959) 14. Alec Douglas Hume – 12,002,642 (1964) 15. Neil Kinnock – 11,560,484 (1992) 16. James Callaghan – 11,532,218 (1979) 17. David Cameron – 11,334,226 (2015) 18. Edward Miliband – 9,347,273 (2015) 19. Michael Howard – 8,784,915 (2005) 20. Gordon Brown – 8,609,527 (2010) 21. Michael Foot – 8.456,934 (1983) 22. William Hague - 8,357,615 (2001)
Consider that the Liberals way back in Feb 1974 attracted over 6,000,000 votes, and the scandalous iniquity of our crooked voting system is very clear.
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
That's right: has any government inherited a legacy as golden as that left by Major and Clarke?
The golden legacy being the complete collapse of Conservative economic policy.
With respect to back-stairs influence in British politics, how do PBers think that Carrie Symonds ranks compared with:
> Cherie Blair > Dennis Thatcher > Clementine Churchill > Francis Stevenson > Sarah Churchill
More could be added, but that's what I've got to offer pre-lunch!
I never knew Lloyd George went with transvestites
Edit - for least influential, how about Mrs Attlee? An active Conservative.
Thanks for spelling note.
As for Violet Attlee, while it's well-attested she was a Conservative (just as Clemmie Churchill was a Liberal) don't think there's any evidence she was "active" in sense of being a Conservative Party activist or public supporter (same with Mrs C on the Lib side).
I don’t understand why it matters that the Tory party gave Boris a loan for his renovation.
Why should we care?
He’s a big fat liar. We already knew that.
It doesn’t matter.
It's much less concerning that the Tory party made the loan than, say, a Russian oligarch or Sanjeev Gupta. After all one expects the PM to be in hock to his party.
So you are cunningly drawing attention to how the Tory party is funded.
Is it pure untainted Tory money, or are they a laundering exercise?
I think this is where it’s going isn’t it? It’s all some cunning hot d’eurve to calling party funding sleazy.
Don't worry about a worldwide pandemic, worry about who paid for the wallpaper in flat, thats much more important.
As I said in the other thread, you're clearly missing the point deliberately.
Either there are rules about pseudo political donations to avoid allegations of undue influence and conflicts of interest that apply equally, or there are not.
Boris knows the rules so there's no excuse.
If you want a free for all on political donations, feel free to argue that, but otherwise Boris, as Prime Minister, should follow the rules.
I make no comment on the seriousness of the matter, but he should still follow the rules.
Boris Johnson follow the rules? Don't make us larf!
Might as well ask BoJo's soulmate Trumpsky to follow the rules. Two rotten peas in a toxic pod.
Nah, Boris was too lazy to even mildly fiddle his taxes.
Do other PBers believe that Boris Johnson is innocent of having "fiddled with his taxes" or (like Trumpsky) getting someone to do it for him?
I was referring to when he was challenged to release his tax returns by Livingstone, showing he had not, as far as I recall, employed common tax avoidance techniques as Ken had alleged.
While Livingstone paid himself through a company, avoiding a lot of tax. Quite ironic really.
At no point has anyone said it was said within the meeting - Boris is reported to have said it while in his own office after the meeting
This is becoming surreal.
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Not really.
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
46% of the public do not believe either of them
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
But he is not wise
I simply don't get Cummings' play here. What does he expect to get out of fighting back? What potential client would want to hire him now, given this behaviour, regardless of the rights of his position?
Is he acting simply out of ego and righteous anger? Because there does not seem to be any logic that would see this course of action helps Cummings in any way.
Cummings always seemed to value himself far more than his boss. Whatever one thinks of him, or Boris, that does make him seem particularly ill suited to be an adviser, knowing he will not take flak and go quietly in the first place, and that he will be recording things and making notes to screw his employers later if he feels it warranted.
It's be like hiring a firefighter who wouldn't put himself at risk by running into a burning building. And who was also an arsonist.
I think it's pretty clear what the division of labour was meant to be; Boris was there to win the election and Dom and Gove were there to run the country. And that seemed quite mutually agreeable, since nobody would vote for Cummings himself and Johnson is clearly too lazy to actually do much Prime Ministering, beyond the fun bits.
What we're seeing now is Cummings realising that he's been used and dumped. And responding in roughly the same way as all Johnson's other exes.
The European Commission - the EU's executive branch - said it was suing the company for not respecting its vaccine supply contract, and for not having a "reliable" plan to ensure timely deliveries.
AstraZeneca said the move was "without merit".
It said it would "strongly defend itself in court".
This has turned into the international equivalent of when you hear those stories of two neighbours who has a falling out and before you know it they are burning down each others gardens.
Having seen the contracts, I would be very surprised if it actually got anywhere near a court of law. My guess is that there will be a "symbolic" victory where the EU announces that they have won. When, in fact, all they have done is pissed off an entity who might otherwise have made significant investments in the bloc.
The case is being brought in Belgium before Belgian courts. Is this as stipulated in the contract, Robert?
Does anyone know how such cases typically proceed in Belgium - does it follow pretty much the same course as we'd expect in the US and UK, or is it completely different?
The contract stipulates Belgium, but I don't think that's really relevant here. The reality is that this case wouldn't come to court for some time, and what the EU wants to do is to declare victory. Announcing you're suing, then announcing that AZ has "folded" is a PR win.
It is also spectacularly short-sighted. But we've seen a lot of spectacularly short-sighted stuff from the EU in the last 12 months.
Yes, and they're paying for it, the Pfizer contract for their 2022/23 1.8bn doses comes in at ~$50bn and Pfizer are charging over and above due to the EU asking for majority domestic supply chains.
With respect to back-stairs influence in British politics, how do PBers think that Carrie Symonds ranks compared with:
> Cherie Blair > Dennis Thatcher > Clementine Churchill > Francis Stevenson > Sarah Churchill
More could be added, but that's what I've got to offer pre-lunch!
I never knew Lloyd George went with transvestites
Edit - for least influential, how about Mrs Attlee? An active Conservative.
So the opposite of Cherie, a firebrand, Scouse socialist married to a Tory.
Yeah, Cherie was such a firebrand socialist that she got in hot water over wonky property dealings IIRC.
Plus she was as epic a PR disaster as Nancy Reagan, but without the later's redeeming qualifies (most notably fierce loyalty to her hubby - just ask the ghosts of Al Haig and Don Regan!)
With respect to back-stairs influence in British politics, how do PBers think that Carrie Symonds ranks compared with:
> Cherie Blair > Dennis Thatcher > Clementine Churchill > Francis Stevenson > Sarah Churchill
More could be added, but that's what I've got to offer pre-lunch!
I never knew Lloyd George went with transvestites
Edit - for least influential, how about Mrs Attlee? An active Conservative.
Thanks for spelling note.
As for Violet Attlee, while it's well-attested she was a Conservative (just as Clemmie Churchill was a Liberal) don't think there's any evidence she was "active" in sense of being a Conservative Party activist or public supporter (same with Mrs C on the Lib side).
As well as Clementine Churchill, Winston was a Liberal MP when they married and would serve as a minister in Liberal governments.
With respect to back-stairs influence in British politics, how do PBers think that Carrie Symonds ranks compared with:
> Cherie Blair > Dennis Thatcher > Clementine Churchill > Francis Stevenson > Sarah Churchill
More could be added, but that's what I've got to offer pre-lunch!
I never knew Lloyd George went with transvestites
Edit - for least influential, how about Mrs Attlee? An active Conservative.
Thanks for spelling note.
As for Violet Attlee, while it's well-attested she was a Conservative (just as Clemmie Churchill was a Liberal) don't think there's any evidence she was "active" in sense of being a Conservative Party activist or public supporter (same with Mrs C on the Lib side).
As well as Clementine Churchill, Winston was a Liberal MP when they married and would serve as a minister in Liberal governments.
Yeah, but my point is that neither Mrs Attlee or Mrs Churchill were political ACTIVISTS. There personal politics were private, not public.
And rarely seem to have much affected their husbands' views on public policy.
Politico.com - Cuomo offers blanket denial of harassment allegations
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has fiercely denied allegations of sexual harassment leveled at him over the past several months during his first in-person Q&A with press since late last year.
The governor was asked Monday about the multiple scandals and investigations that have enveloped his administration during an event at the Fairgrounds outside of Syracuse after he announced that the State Fair will reopen this summer at 50 percent capacity. Cuomo denied the allegations of several women who have accused him of behavior ranging from inappropriate comments to groping.
“To put it very simply ‘no,’” he said, when asked if the reports were true.
When asked if he would resign if a forthcoming investigation from state Attorney General Tish James’ office finds evidence otherwise, Cuomo said that would not be the case.
“The report can’t say anything different because I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. . . .
What's quite striking is that all the people opining firmly that these possible Johnson scandals are small beer and a distraction from what's important seem to be tory partisans!
Well they are the ones that matter.
If you start to see Tory partisans turn against Boris (and I don't mean the ones who've always been against him) then the story is damaging.
In Theresa May's dying days Tory after Tory were unwilling to back her here.
I think even the Blair Landslide of 1997 was partly a result of many tories sitting on their hands, correct?
Yup, something like the Tories lost 4 and a half million between 1992 and 1997 and only 2 million went to other parties, and 2 and a half million Tories stayed at home.
Voting Tory in 1997 was pretty hardcore. The government had barely been in power since 1992 and looked tired, corrupt and somewhat over provided with complete arseholes. There was very little to like about it. I think I did vote Tory because I always vote but enthusiasm levels were rock bottom.
Indeed. What is interesting though is Ken Clark was doing an amazing job as chancellor. Labour enjoyed a golden early period partly because of his efforts, which were just coming to fruition as the election became due.
A year later, and the defeat might not have been so bad. Indeed, Clark could have started to share the fruits of his recovery early. As I remember, he decided not to.
That's right: has any government inherited a legacy as golden as that left by Major and Clarke?
Bill Clinton I think comes close.
Yes, Clinton left Bush a bountiful economy and massive surplus. And he did it without running down public services to breaking point like Major/Clarke did.
With respect to back-stairs influence in British politics, how do PBers think that Carrie Symonds ranks compared with:
> Cherie Blair > Dennis Thatcher > Clementine Churchill > Francis Stevenson > Sarah Churchill
More could be added, but that's what I've got to offer pre-lunch!
I never knew Lloyd George went with transvestites
Edit - for least influential, how about Mrs Attlee? An active Conservative.
Thanks for spelling note.
As for Violet Attlee, while it's well-attested she was a Conservative (just as Clemmie Churchill was a Liberal) don't think there's any evidence she was "active" in sense of being a Conservative Party activist or public supporter (same with Mrs C on the Lib side).
As well as Clementine Churchill, Winston was a Liberal MP when they married and would serve as a minister in Liberal governments.
Yeah, but my point is that neither Mrs Attlee or Mrs Churchill were political ACTIVISTS. There personal politics were private, not public.
And rarely seem to have much affected their husbands' views on public policy.
Violet Attlee was a member of the Labour Party, but she earned the lasting dislike of the left for her frequent criticism of their policies.
Not that it seems to have affected her husband’s political direction.
Comments
And Gove has been very careful regarding his answer to keep his answer to what happened within the meeting itself
So it was not in the meeting now, but some alleged throw away comment in his private office
This is scrapping the barrel time
Any reasonably well informed person, looking at the evidence, would conclude that the clown made the comment in private, but was overheard through an open door, whereas Gove has been careful to limit his denial to comments made at the formal meeting that took place separately.
The clown is relying upon Cummo having a credibility problem, ironically arising from the fabricated defence he cooked up with Downing Street to get him off the Barnard Castle accusations. Neither of them have any track record as truthtellers, but Cummo does have the advantage of having a lot of recorded evidence at his disposal.
Boris is popular with the ordinary public and the so called educated Metropolitan elite just cannot accept that their self appointed 'we know better than you' is not cutting through or is the best way to persuade them to back your case
Of course Boris will go at sometime as all political careers end, but he may be there to irritate you for some time yet
The Tories need to decide quickly whether they want the clown in charge at the next election, or not.
And of course if Cummings had been wise he would not have given forewarning of his intent on the 26th May
But he is not wise
Why should we care?
He’s a big fat liar. We already knew that.
It doesn’t matter.
What a kind and generous legacy indeed!
Our GP has been dropped a fresh stash of Pfizer. Wor Lass is booked in for her second dose on Wednesday - 11 weeks after the first.
Nice work, NHS.
Assuming he overcomes this latest round of petty dishonesties, all the evidence suggests that Boris is not far from the next toxic lie.
Eventually - could be next week, could be next decade - his fabulism will see him fall.
If he spent a fraction of that time facing up to the real problems the citizens of this country are facing - and even finding a solution for some of them - we would all be much better off.
I think the main problem that we face is loss of trust in the government, and indeed in everybody in positions of authority.
If you don’t care about this stuff it says more about your own standards than anything else.
Nevertheless his account is a lot more credible than the clown’s.
As you would have readily accepted, prior to your Damascus trip late in 2019.
Read what I said. Read what you said. What other interpretation is there?
And am pleased I have impressed you
Is he acting simply out of ego and righteous anger? Because there does not seem to be any logic that would see this course of action helps Cummings in any way.
And ending the ESL
Utterly, utterly fecked right now
But god, i needed that
Mind you 46% do not believe either
A fascinating re-imagining of the events of 1997 from some presumably too young to have experienced that more interesting period in British politics.
The events of what some called "Black" Wednesday and Andrew Neil always called "White" Wednesday destroyed in one day the Conservative asset of sound economic management. It was analogous to the 1967 Devaluation - it brought the Conservatives down to Labour's level and in truth they never recovered.
In 1995 the Conservatives lost 2000 Councillors in a single night - that foreshadowed the events of 1997.
Would it have been the same had Smith lived? We'll never so but Blair went further and by 1997 he had convinced millions of former Conservative voters the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left and whether via a direct change of vote or by voting for the LDs or staying at home, the Conservative vote which had so strongly propelled Major to victory in 1992 withered away.
There were Conservatives, who, despite the local election losses, couldn't believe what was happening, People weren't slamming doors on Tory canvassers or setting the dog on anyone delivering a Tory leaflet - no, they smiled politely and knifed the Conservative Party the only place that mattered - in the polling booth.
The only pressure to move this PM is if it looks like the opposition can win a GE from about 18 months out, when you factor in how far behind in seats realistic coalition government is, how opposition parties will neatly divid up votes with each other not take them from Boris.
The vaccination programme beat COVID. It saved UK lives and economy. It put BREXIT Britain leading the world as promised. And it was all down to Boris and his government making decisions on vaccine procurement and jab logistics - the key decision being not to allow NHS to do it.
Meanwhile the opposition parties wanted us in the EU in the same vaccine scheme as Brussels, lives lost, businesses lost. Does any opposition party seriously expect a vote for them in the next 9 years?
When Mystic Rose said the vaccination programme is the most marvellous achievement of any UK government in decades ensures Boris is re elected she took stick, but she was just more ahead of game than rest of you. As she normally is. If I funded a free school I would make her head.
This PM and government is exactly what the electorate have been wanting for decades. They are doing a good job.
Someone with a bin on his head has more character the the leader of the opposition.
The 2001 GE was the only British election to occur when yours truly was actually in the UK. (Obviously some issues with border security even back then!) Sadly, it was dull as dishwater.
Among the very few items to relieve the boredom:
> seeing John Prescott decking the punk who threw the egg at him (saw this on TV before leaving).
> listening to Charles Kennedy being interviewed on the radio while cruising about England's green & pleasant land; what a great voice and he had a great election that year.
> looking longingly at pictures of ffion Hague which was about the only positive thing about her hubby's hapless death march of a campaign.
> trying to keep my distance from flocks of sheep, in the midst of the Mad Cow crisis, and wading though MANY troughs of disinfectant visiting sites along Hadrian's Wall.
> chatting with the only poll worker at a polling places in Devises constituency, was there for maybe half and hour, no voters showed up in that interval but a bobbie did, and joked about how UK wasn't Florida; of course that was in the good old days before BJ turned No. 10 into Mar-el-Lardo East.
FMD, on the other hand, is highly infectious and spreads through fomites as well. It was a disease that ran riot in 2001 first by the failure of a dodgy meat plant to boil their swill properly, second by the EU subsidy system that meant infected pigs were being hurriedly passed from farm to farm, and exacerbated by the gross incompetence of MAFF/DEFRA under first Nick Brown and then Beckett, who had no clue what they were doing (and showed no signs of learning lessons either).
The election may have been boring but to me, living in a farming area, the background was anything but.
2. Boris Johnson – 13,966,454 (2019)
3. Clement Attlee – 13,948,385 (1951)
4. Margaret Thatcher – 13,760,583 (1987)
5. Harold MacMillan – 13,750,875 (1959)
6. Winston Churchill – 13,717,851 (1951)
7. Theresa May – 13,636,684 (2017)
8. Tony Blair – 13,518,167 (1997)
9. Anthony Eden – 13,310,891 (1955)
10. Edward Heath – 13,145,123 (1970)
11. Harold Wilson – 13,096,951 (1966)
12. Jeremy Corbyn – 12,878,460 (2017)
13. Hugh Gaitskell – 12,216,172 (1959)
14. Alec Douglas Hume – 12,002,642 (1964)
15. Neil Kinnock – 11,560,484 (1992)
16. James Callaghan – 11,532,218 (1979)
17. David Cameron – 11,334,226 (2015)
18. Edward Miliband – 9,347,273 (2015)
19. Michael Howard – 8,784,915 (2005)
20. Gordon Brown – 8,609,527 (2010)
21. Michael Foot – 8.456,934 (1983)
22. William Hague - 8,357,615 (2001)
Some of the places I wanted to visit were closed. And on one occasion changed my route, because the side road I planned to take was marked "please don't drive here" by the locals.
It is also spectacularly short-sighted. But we've seen a lot of spectacularly short-sighted stuff from the EU in the last 12 months.
Which is why it will be settled for a nominal sum long before any laundry is aired in public.
> Cherie Blair
> Dennis Thatcher
> Clementine Churchill
> Francis Stevenson
> Sarah Churchill
More could be added, but that's what I've got to offer pre-lunch!
It's be like hiring a firefighter who wouldn't put himself at risk by running into a burning building. And who was also an arsonist.
Edit - for least influential, how about Mrs Attlee? An active Conservative.
To be honest, I couldn't really care a great deal over the profligate and ostentatious decoration of Number 11 Downing Street, although I am quite enjoying the spectacle ofJohnson squirming like he has a rectum full of haemorrhoids.
Big donor give donation earmarked for specific purpose, which is NOT disclosed, except that the money ends up where it was intended to end up.
The difference being, her predecessors didn’t make such a fecking song and dance about it.
Is anyone else reminded of Little Britain by her ‘first woman to be President’ remark?
As for Violet Attlee, while it's well-attested she was a Conservative (just as Clemmie Churchill was a Liberal) don't think there's any evidence she was "active" in sense of being a Conservative Party activist or public supporter (same with Mrs C on the Lib side).
Is it pure untainted Tory money, or are they a laundering exercise?
I think this is where it’s going isn’t it? It’s all some cunning hot d’eurve to calling party funding sleazy.
What we're seeing now is Cummings realising that he's been used and dumped. And responding in roughly the same way as all Johnson's other exes.
And one day, that will be all of us.
Plus she was as epic a PR disaster as Nancy Reagan, but without the later's redeeming qualifies (most notably fierce loyalty to her hubby - just ask the ghosts of Al Haig and Don Regan!)
And rarely seem to have much affected their husbands' views on public policy.
Politico.com - Cuomo offers blanket denial of harassment allegations
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has fiercely denied allegations of sexual harassment leveled at him over the past several months during his first in-person Q&A with press since late last year.
The governor was asked Monday about the multiple scandals and investigations that have enveloped his administration during an event at the Fairgrounds outside of Syracuse after he announced that the State Fair will reopen this summer at 50 percent capacity. Cuomo denied the allegations of several women who have accused him of behavior ranging from inappropriate comments to groping.
“To put it very simply ‘no,’” he said, when asked if the reports were true.
When asked if he would resign if a forthcoming investigation from state Attorney General Tish James’ office finds evidence otherwise, Cuomo said that would not be the case.
“The report can’t say anything different because I didn’t do anything wrong,” he said. . . .
So from every point of view, she was the perfect socialist.
"Dave Wasserman
@Redistrict
BREAKING: new Census apportionment counts...
TX +2
FL +1
CO, MT, NC, OR +1
CA, IL, MI, NY, OH, PA, WV -1"
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1386760864267649032
Not that it seems to have affected her husband’s political direction.