A fine time ahead for Boris Johnson? – politicalbetting.com

Will the police really fine the Prime Minister?

I have next to no faith that they will. They're almost as corrupt as No.10

So if that's what the rump of tory MPs are waiting for then I think it may be down to the British people to do to Johnson what his party seem incapable of.

Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.

OldKingCole said:

Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!

I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers.
Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.

Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.

There is clearly something we are not being told.

Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.

Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!

I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers.
Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.

Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.

There is clearly something we are not being told.

Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.

Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’

I suggest the loss of her husband has reminded the Queen of her own mortality.
She also now has the situation where her son's first marriage ended over twenty years ago and furthermore his former wife has been dead for almost 25 years.
While we by no means got to a similar situation by the same route, (our daughter died, of MND, and the marriage was, so far as we could tell, very happy) we have come to accept our son-in-law's new partner.

Fishy Rishi. In a little dishy.

ydoethur said:

ping said:

The Camilla story is really about Charles asserting himself.

QE is now queen in name only. Charles has the reins of power.

I think it most unlikely that the Queen, unless suffering from advanced dementia (which she clearly isn’t) would allow messages to go out in her name that she didn’t agree with.

That said, in one sense it’s a shame Charles isn’t King. Can you imagine how his next speech from the throne would begin?

‘My lords, honourable members, this session my government, whom I regret to say are a bunch of crooks, liars, drunks and thieving parasites, will continue to completely fail to address all the problems we face. Their programme is instead as follows…’

I doubt he'll ever say anything like that; in public anyway. Or even to someone who might pass it on.
Would you care for a small wager on the point?

Although of course he did make the remark about Nicholas Witchell.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/05/give-me-back-my-200000-major-donor-tells-tories

This all looks rather murky. Although I learned a nice new phrase from it - "access capitalism". So much easier on the ear than "corruption" don't you think?

Quite funny that even on the basis of access for money corruption, the Tories still managed to welsh on the deal (no offence, Wales).

US official, based on govt assessment, says: At current rate of build up, Russia should be at full operational capability around February 15. They have now moved ground troops near Ukraine from nearly every part of their military……

US official, based on govt estimate, if full invasion:
- significant civilian casualties expected: 25,000 to 50,000 civilians killed or wounded in the first few weeks
- 1 to 5 million refugees and internally displaced persons

https://twitter.com/richardengel/status/1490221015393316870?s=21

The Winter Olympics end on the 20th

StuartDickson said:

[Johnson’s] reputation has collapsed so badly that even his biggest two successes — delivering Brexit and tackling the pandemic — are dismissed as failures.

The devastating verdict on the PM’s reputation is laid bare in an exclusive Deltapoll survey for The Sun on Sunday.

Mr Johnson is given a negative rating on the cost of living crisis, with eight in ten saying he is making a hash of it.

Two thirds of voters are opposed to his decision to increase National Insurance contributions — and more than eight in ten want him to cut VAT.

The PM is also marked down on immigration, crime, climate change, Russian aggression in Ukraine, preserving the UK — and even Brexit and the pandemic.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17558613/boris-johnson-partygate-poll-scandal/amp/

Rishi Sunak is the top choice to repair the damage of Partygate and win the next election for the Tories.

The Chancellor is the favourite among one in three of all voters and nearly half of Tory voters — with all his rivals in single figures

That said “Don’t know” on 42% is well ahead of Rishi on 29%.

JosiasJessop said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

ping said:

The Camilla story is really about Charles asserting himself.

QE is now queen in name only. Charles has the reins of power.

I think it most unlikely that the Queen, unless suffering from advanced dementia (which she clearly isn’t) would allow messages to go out in her name that she didn’t agree with.

That said, in one sense it’s a shame Charles isn’t King. Can you imagine how his next speech from the throne would begin?

‘My lords, honourable members, this session my government, whom I regret to say are a bunch of crooks, liars, drunks and thieving parasites, will continue to completely fail to address all the problems we face. Their programme is instead as follows…’

I doubt he'll ever say anything like that; in public anyway. Or even to someone who might pass it on.
Would you care for a small wager on the point?

Although of course he did make the remark about Nicholas Witchell.

That’s what would be the difference between Her Majesty and HRH. She would never criticise people directly. He does. And just imagine the explosion if Johnson treated him the way he’s been treating the monarch recently.

Whether he’s wise to do so is a horse of a different colour. But equally wisdom and restraint have never exactly been Charles’ hallmarks.

Charles as monarch might be a different creature to Charles as Prince of Wales. The roles are different, as he well knows.

It also seems an example where he cannot win: if he had spent the last five decades in silence, he would be accused of being empty and mindless. When he speaks out, he is opinionated.

In addition, he's been proven correct on many of the topics he has spoken out on, hasn't he? e.g. the environment (both green issues and the built environment).

No, he can't win. That's one reason why his role is such a horrible one.

I'm intrigued though. Nowhere have I suggested he would be wrong, on a factual level. In what way would the speech as I have drafted it be incorrect?

The first set of 'revelations' from the Ashcroft Carrie book appear to be, allegedly:

- she was having an affair with another unnamed married Tory MP (unnamed, although the article isn't without potential clues) before she settled on Johnson;

- early in their relationship he tried to appoint her as his chief of staff, opposed by staff and ministers;

- for Johnson, Carrie was always just a fling and only turned serious when his wife finally walked away; you get the impression that Johnson only managed to function as a normal person because his wife used to organise his life;

- she vetoed his first choice of politician to run his leadership campaign;

- A friend describes their relationship as 'emotionally disruptive', another that it is 'toxic'

plus a load of Cummo-type material about how she interferes in everything, and some tittle-tattle about her life prior.

Not clear how this plays into the leadership - those against him will take it as another set of danger signals whereas supporters may try and deflect more blame onto her - when the focus ought to be on how it is his character flaws that underlie all of these problems.

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.

Don't think Rishi's every spoken in the House about it. He's mentioned it in interviews, IIRC, saying something anodyne.

Incidentally, we sometimes see pictures of him with a glass of beer in his hand, when we know he's teetotal; I realise it's 'publicity', but surely that's dishonest.
Personally, while I do, I have no problem with people who choose not to drink alcoholic drinks. It's a respectable lifestyle choice which is different to mine, that's all.

I understand alcohol-free beer is a thing.

Admittedly, never met anyone who drinks it.....

I have done occasionally, when wanting to meet with friends and the only option was to drive. A couple of them now taste reasonably. I just don't really like soft drinks.

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/05/give-me-back-my-200000-major-donor-tells-tories

This all looks rather murky. Although I learned a nice new phrase from it - "access capitalism". So much easier on the ear than "corruption" don't you think?

Quite funny that even on the basis of access for money corruption, the Tories still managed to welsh on the deal (no offence, Wales).

What, you think those last three words mean we'll let you off Scot free?

This is all Irish to me.

IanB2 said:

The first set of 'revelations' from the Ashcroft Carrie book appear to be, allegedly:

- she was having an affair with another unnamed married Tory MP (unnamed, although the article isn't without potential clues) before she settled on Johnson;

We all know who it is...

deleted.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Boris Johnson’s dwindling inner circle greeted his double appointment last night of Steve Barclay as the new chief of staff and Guto Harri as director of communications at No 10 as proof that the prime minister was a man of his word – and one who acted fast.

Conor Burns, one of Johnson’s cheerleaders, tweeted: “He is delivering. @SteveBarclay is a talented and serious Minister and @Guto_Harri is a professional operator. Both great appointments.”

But elsewhere the appointments – made necessary by the resignation of five Johnson aides last week – caused almost universal bafflement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/05/boris-johnsons-new-aides-are-greeted-with-bafflement

Yet another Tory appointment of a Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation hack. It is almost as if they know their claims of lefty bias are mere propaganda.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but we all know, to quote Roy Bland, that a good Socialist will go where the money is.

Deleted

eek said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!

I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers.
Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.

Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.

There is clearly something we are not being told.

Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.

Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’

Don’t read my post in the last thread about Camilla /Diana as anything beyond a quick joke.

First time round Charles wasn’t allowed to marry Camilla so he settled on someone else.

I was thinking more of Aslan's series of posts.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Boris Johnson’s dwindling inner circle greeted his double appointment last night of Steve Barclay as the new chief of staff and Guto Harri as director of communications at No 10 as proof that the prime minister was a man of his word – and one who acted fast.

Conor Burns, one of Johnson’s cheerleaders, tweeted: “He is delivering. @SteveBarclay is a talented and serious Minister and @Guto_Harri is a professional operator. Both great appointments.”

But elsewhere the appointments – made necessary by the resignation of five Johnson aides last week – caused almost universal bafflement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/05/boris-johnsons-new-aides-are-greeted-with-bafflement

Yet another Tory appointment of a Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation hack. It is almost as if they know their claims of lefty bias are mere propaganda.

The 'Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation'; surely the BBC's current crawling to the Government provides the final nail in the coffin of that old canard!

I seem to be having some problems with duplication of comments. Hence another 'deleted'.

eek said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!

I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers.
Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.

Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.

There is clearly something we are not being told.

Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.

Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’

Don’t read my post in the last thread about Camilla /Diana as anything beyond a quick joke.

First time round Charles wasn’t allowed to marry Camilla so he settled on someone else.

That would be because Camilla was already married.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17558613/boris-johnson-partygate-poll-scandal/amp/

As Mike Smithson has demonstrated, favourability ratings are an excellent guide.

Johnson doesn't recover from this. But the tory party may be stupid enough to leave him in place and do a collective reenactment of the Gadarene swine.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!

I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers.
Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.

Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.

There is clearly something we are not being told.

Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.

Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’

Don’t read my post in the last thread about Camilla /Diana as anything beyond a quick joke.

First time round Charles wasn’t allowed to marry Camilla so he settled on someone else.

That would be because Camilla was already married.

Not according to this timeline https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a9961113/prince-charles-camilla-parker-bowles-relationship/

theProle said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Boris Johnson’s dwindling inner circle greeted his double appointment last night of Steve Barclay as the new chief of staff and Guto Harri as director of communications at No 10 as proof that the prime minister was a man of his word – and one who acted fast.

Conor Burns, one of Johnson’s cheerleaders, tweeted: “He is delivering. @SteveBarclay is a talented and serious Minister and @Guto_Harri is a professional operator. Both great appointments.”

But elsewhere the appointments – made necessary by the resignation of five Johnson aides last week – caused almost universal bafflement.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/05/boris-johnsons-new-aides-are-greeted-with-bafflement

Yet another Tory appointment of a Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation hack. It is almost as if they know their claims of lefty bias are mere propaganda.

The other way to read it is that Johnson isn't much of a Tory, whilst Carrie is soft left, exactly like most of the BBC.

Guto Harri was the one that got bulleted from Gammon Bastard News for kneeling.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/youll-need-a-tank-division-to-drag-me-out-of-downing-st-johnson-tells-allies-g65c6j65b

In the end they all turn into despots, with no other priority than the grubby retention of power for its sake, with no care or consideration for the consequences. Happened remarkably quickly with him.

And I have to say, it does make me rethink prior opposition to PR, if this is what strong majorities do.

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.

Don't think Rishi's every spoken in the House about it. He's mentioned it in interviews, IIRC, saying something anodyne.

Incidentally, we sometimes see pictures of him with a glass of beer in his hand, when we know he's teetotal; I realise it's 'publicity', but surely that's dishonest.
Personally, while I do, I have no problem with people who choose not to drink alcoholic drinks. It's a respectable lifestyle choice which is different to mine, that's all.

I understand alcohol-free beer is a thing.

Admittedly, never met anyone who drinks it.....

I drink low and alcohol free beer. It’s fine. A nice option to have on a night out if you’re driving or just don’t want booze.

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!

I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers.
Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.

Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.

There is clearly something we are not being told.

Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.

Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’

Don’t read my post in the last thread about Camilla /Diana as anything beyond a quick joke.

First time round Charles wasn’t allowed to marry Camilla so he settled on someone else.

That would be because Camilla was already married.

Not according to this timeline https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a9961113/prince-charles-camilla-parker-bowles-relationship/

Camilla was married to Andrew Parker-Bowles when Prince Charles married Lady Diana, as shown on that timeline.

OldKingCole said:

Dura_Ace said:

IanB2 said:

The first set of 'revelations' from the Ashcroft Carrie book appear to be, allegedly:

- she was having an affair with another unnamed married Tory MP (unnamed, although the article isn't without potential clues) before she settled on Johnson;

We all know who it is...

Oh no we don't......

Indeed. I suspect most of us don’t know who it is and probably don’t care a great deal either.

Taz said:

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.

Don't think Rishi's every spoken in the House about it. He's mentioned it in interviews, IIRC, saying something anodyne.

Incidentally, we sometimes see pictures of him with a glass of beer in his hand, when we know he's teetotal; I realise it's 'publicity', but surely that's dishonest.
Personally, while I do, I have no problem with people who choose not to drink alcoholic drinks. It's a respectable lifestyle choice which is different to mine, that's all.

I understand alcohol-free beer is a thing.

Admittedly, never met anyone who drinks it.....

I drink low and alcohol free beer. It’s fine. A nice option to have on a night out if you’re driving or just don’t want booze.

Low alcohol and alcohol free beer has come a long way from the 1990’s when I worked in pubs and only had Kaliber as an option. As others have said there are a few decent ones now, nicely filling the gap between booze and soft drinks. You do have to find what you like. Some taste like watered down beer. Some are plain weird. Ghost ship and nanny state are decent.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

eek said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!

I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers.
Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.

Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.

There is clearly something we are not being told.

Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.

Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’

Don’t read my post in the last thread about Camilla /Diana as anything beyond a quick joke.

First time round Charles wasn’t allowed to marry Camilla so he settled on someone else.

That would be because Camilla was already married.

Not according to this timeline https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a9961113/prince-charles-camilla-parker-bowles-relationship/

Camilla was married to Andrew Parker-Bowles when Prince Charles married Lady Diana, as shown on that timeline.

1970 and Charles wasn’t allowed to marry Camilla

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Day 7...

Kwasi Kwarteng disagrees with Sunak and Javid to back PM over Savile accusation.

"Entirely legitimate... perfectly reasonable... absolutely in scope..." he tells Trevor Phillips

https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1490245934856482819

Truss is the leading loyalist.

Perhaps Kwarteng might be positioning himself as the sane and competent loyalist?

Although I would have said Boris Johnson backers are not big on either quality.

Kwasi Kwarteng for Prime Minister. It is about time we tried an Old Etonian in that post. 66/1 with Betfred but not generally quoted; not even on Betfair.

In the case of Boris Johnson, it's about time we tried an Old Etonian in the High Court.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Day 7...

Kwasi Kwarteng disagrees with Sunak and Javid to back PM over Savile accusation.

"Entirely legitimate... perfectly reasonable... absolutely in scope..." he tells Trevor Phillips

https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1490245934856482819

Truss is the leading loyalist.

Perhaps Kwarteng might be positioning himself as the sane and competent loyalist?

Although I would have said Boris Johnson backers are not big on either quality.

Kwasi Kwarteng for Prime Minister. It is about time we tried an Old Etonian in that post. 66/1 with Betfred but not quoted on Betfair.

Alternatively we could try pounding Eton to rubble with high explosive ordnance?

moonshine said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/youll-need-a-tank-division-to-drag-me-out-of-downing-st-johnson-tells-allies-g65c6j65b

In the end they all turn into despots, with no other priority than the grubby retention of power for its sake, with no care or consideration for the consequences. Happened remarkably quickly with him.

And I have to say, it does make me rethink prior opposition to PR, if this is what strong majorities do.

Absolutely. In a coalition, one party acts as a check upon the other.

noneoftheabove said:

Taz said:

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.

Don't think Rishi's every spoken in the House about it. He's mentioned it in interviews, IIRC, saying something anodyne.

Incidentally, we sometimes see pictures of him with a glass of beer in his hand, when we know he's teetotal; I realise it's 'publicity', but surely that's dishonest.
Personally, while I do, I have no problem with people who choose not to drink alcoholic drinks. It's a respectable lifestyle choice which is different to mine, that's all.

I understand alcohol-free beer is a thing.

Admittedly, never met anyone who drinks it.....

I drink low and alcohol free beer. It’s fine. A nice option to have on a night out if you’re driving or just don’t want booze.

Another generational thing. Tasted like piss when I grew up and the only option was Kaliber. Nowadays lots of choice and some are very good. A lot of elite endurance athletes actually drink it as good for muscle recovery.

I’m probably the same generation as you. Kaliber was around when I was early twenties and it was vile. There were a couple,of others too and a wine, Eisberg. Terrible. Nowadays The brew dog offerings are good and many craft breweries do low alcohol options and there are some terrific ones out there. I’ve got a bottle of ghost ship to go,with Sunday lunch and my wife has a big drop stout with hers.

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Day 7...

Kwasi Kwarteng disagrees with Sunak and Javid to back PM over Savile accusation.

"Entirely legitimate... perfectly reasonable... absolutely in scope..." he tells Trevor Phillips

https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1490245934856482819

Truss is the leading loyalist.

Perhaps Kwarteng might be positioning himself as the sane and competent loyalist?

Although I would have said Boris Johnson backers are not big on either quality.

Kwasi Kwarteng for Prime Minister. It is about time we tried an Old Etonian in that post. 66/1 with Betfred but not generally quoted; not even on Betfair.

In the case of Boris Johnson, it's about time we tried an Old Etonian in the High Court.

The High Court is quite tied up at the moment, off shore his trial to Salem?

If Boris and Sunak are both fined for attending Boris' birthday party, forcing Boris out and ending Sunak's leadership campaign then get on Deputy PM Raab as next Tory leader and PM.

The new Deltapoll in the Sun this morning has Raab now up to second favourite amongst the public for next Tory leader after Sunak, ahead of Truss, Patel, Hunt and Gove

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17558613/boris-johnson-partygate-poll-scandal/

HYUFD said:

If Boris and Sunak are both fined for attending Boris' birthday party, forcing Boris out and ending Sunak's leadership campaign then get on Raab as next Tory leader and PM.

The new Deltapoll in the Sun this morning has Raab now up to second favourite amongst the public for next Tory leader after Sunak, ahead of Truss, Patel, Hunt and Gove

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/17558613/boris-johnson-partygate-poll-scandal/

The thought of Raab as PM is enough to make me think that fining Boris Johnson might not be such a great idea after all.

MarqueeMark said:

OldKingCole said:

MarqueeMark said:

Has Rishi ever told the House of Commons he never attended a party in Downing Street during the lockdown period? Because that is why Boris will have to resign.

Don't think Rishi's every spoken in the House about it. He's mentioned it in interviews, IIRC, saying something anodyne.

Incidentally, we sometimes see pictures of him with a glass of beer in his hand, when we know he's teetotal; I realise it's 'publicity', but surely that's dishonest.
Personally, while I do, I have no problem with people who choose not to drink alcoholic drinks. It's a respectable lifestyle choice which is different to mine, that's all.

I understand alcohol-free beer is a thing.

Admittedly, never met anyone who drinks it.....

Never buy ‘beer’ from a supermarket in the Middle East.

It’s actually a huge growth area for the brewers, but was quite the double-take when I first saw ‘Heineken’ and ‘Budweiser’ on sale in the local shop out here!

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Good morning one and all. Although 'all' isn't many of us yet!

I see the 70th anniversary of the the Queen's accession, and consequent run up to the 69th anniversary of the coronation is beginning to stir leader and feature writers.
Probably to the advantage of the PM. Something else to talk about.

Perhaps more instructive though that her mind seems to be dwelling more on death and the succession.

There is clearly something we are not being told.

Also rather instructive the way she seems to have taken to Camilla. Which I gather is typical of people who know her personally. One regiment she was honorary Colonel of thought the world of her because any time a soldier was injured she took the trouble to hand write them a note wishing them a speedy recovery, along with a bottle of good whisky.

Whether the Queen’s recent very public endorsements will be enough to overcome the lingering public hostility of Diana’s many admirers is a different question. The last thread suggests the answer is ‘no.’

Indeed, but the question is how many people that comprises. I'd guess fewer than there used to be, but still a fair number. It still surprises me - adultery is shameful behaviour but there is the matter of proportion.

As for her thoughts on death and succession and something we're not being told, she's 95 and her 99 year old husband died, the thought is bound to come up. Especially as she has fewer engagements.

FrankBooth said:

I thought there was a six month cut off for this stuff?

Fair or otherwise it would leave him in the clear. And we could have the Gray report in full....

If there is a six month cutoff, why are the police investigating at all?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Day 7...

Kwasi Kwarteng disagrees with Sunak and Javid to back PM over Savile accusation.

"Entirely legitimate... perfectly reasonable... absolutely in scope..." he tells Trevor Phillips

https://twitter.com/Smyth_Chris/status/1490245934856482819

Truss is the leading loyalist.

Perhaps Kwarteng might be positioning himself as the sane and competent loyalist?

Although I would have said Boris Johnson backers are not big on either quality.

Kwasi Kwarteng for Prime Minister. It is about time we tried an Old Etonian in that post. 66/1 with Betfred but not quoted on Betfair.

He might see it as a chance to restore the great name of Eton College which has fallen into disrepute.

kjh said:

On topic: I don't think Boris will resign if fined. I also don't think he will go if he wins a VONC by just 1 vote.

If he's not required to, he wont. Even where he should be required to, like misleading the House (and it is bit credible it was not knowingly) he wont.

ydoethur said:

FrankBooth said:

I thought there was a six month cut off for this stuff?

Fair or otherwise it would leave him in the clear. And we could have the Gray report in full....

If there is a six month cutoff, why are the police investigating at all?

Is it 6 months from the date of incident, or from the date that the police became aware of it?

HYUFD said:

IDS still backs Boris on Marr but says he must regain the public's trust.

There is a quote below back from 1988 where Boris boasts of manipulating and deceiving people. He has done remarkably well to continue doing that for another 35 years, openly and publicly, yet still have followers who think he is someone they can lend their trust!

HYUFD said:

IDS still backs Boris on Marr but says he must regain the public's trust.

Not my interpretation of what he said. If you mean he hasn't sent in a letter, well you are right, but not exactly wholehearted support.

HYUFD said:

IDS still backs Boris on Marr but says he must regain the public's trust.

Which he never will. Partly because it's too late and partly because it isn't in Johnson's being

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

IDS still backs Boris on Marr but says he must regain the public's trust.

Not my interpretation of what he said. If you mean he hasn't sent in a letter, well you are right, but not exactly wholehearted support.

A failure to send a letter counts as support, as the longer he puts off a challenge the better.

Politics by Twitter war: Harri replies to Cummings https://twitter.com/Guto_Harri/status/1490095267668017162