***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 2 *****
=============================================================
So one of their members get a slap for lining his pockets, and they decide to disband the disciplinary process.....
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59154221
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59156505
And politicians wonder why they are universally reviled and subject to public abuse.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 18 Jan 22 at 11:42
|
They none of them do themselves any favours, either those trying to dodge responsibility or those baying like innocent pigs.
They don't look like the most heinous of crimes;
"The Commons standards committee found that the North Shropshire MP had used his parliamentary office on 16 occasions for meetings relating to his outside business interests and sent two letters relating to business interests on House of Commons-headed notepaper."
But they would certainly not only seem to be against the rules but pretty b***** obviously so.
|
>> They don't look like the most heinous of crimes;
>>
>> "The Commons standards committee found that the North Shropshire MP had used his parliamentary office
>> on 16 occasions for meetings relating to his outside business interests and sent two letters
>> relating to business interests on House of Commons-headed notepaper."
That I think was the misconduct he admitted.
The big stuff was promoting the products of firms who were paying him very significant retainers:
committees.parliament.uk/publications/7644/documents/79907/default/
|
Meh, maybe. That report seems to talk about the same trivial stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for him. He broke the rules, I suspect that he knew he was doing it, and he should have sucked up his suspension.
It's just the sanctimony and outrage from all the other baying hypocrites that irritates.
I also have no time for those trying to change the rules in the middle of this.
Politicians are all awful.
|
|
And that a week after another member, previously suspended for sexual misconduct with his staff, was readmitted to the party.
|
|
Not sure I see the connection? Or is this just a party political thing.
|
|
Parliament, and government have a shed load of stuff to do. Important stuff. They shouldn't be devoting time and effort to digging their own out of trouble.
|
>> Not sure I see the connection? Or is this just a party political thing.
Another example of the process being perverted for their own. If you want to call that a party political thing then so be it.
Rob Roberts was suspended and lost both the whip and party membership.
In his case action was taken to preclude a recall as the process against him was in chain when that sanction became available; we've started so we'll finish.
Now there's an advantage in stopping the process, and Paterson might have been vulnerable to recall, the process is stopped in its tracks.
Rees Mogg called on Roberts to resign but then he was re-admitted to the party.
Roberts is in the nature of an accidental MP; selected in haste for a snap(ish) election in a seat they thought they'd not win.
Similar to his Labour counterparts Fiona Onesanya, Claudia Webbe and the bloke who unseated Nick Clegg.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 3 Nov 21 at 22:21
|
I'm not really following you, but that's probably my fault.
Fundamentally I think all politicians are awful people who combine their own awful behaviour with shrieks of outrage about other people's bad behaviour.
The focus on saying anything they think will get them elected, denying everything they think won't, wailing at others and prioritise furthering their own interests.
Whatever party they're from. Nothing to choose between them. I'm sure there are some good people amongst them, but I am equally sure that they're the minority.
And they wonder why people become disenchanted with them.
|
On sort of a linked thing, Rees-Mogg has inevitably been weighing in. What an absolutely awful man he is. More than 50% of NE Somerset voted for him. One can only wonder how awful the other candidates must have been.
|
The issue is not whether he received payment or not, as this income was declared. The issue is whether his acts were ones which were allowed or not. Without a right of appeal, there is no possibility of questioning the interpretation of the rules by the investigating body.
In many ways it is similar to the Salmond enquiry. You may not like the guy but denying him due process made the allegations irrelevant.
|
Politicians are generally ranked bottom of "trustworty" professions, with journalists, priests, advertising executives only slightly better.
A trustworthiness equation has been developed - an individual's trustworthiness is equal to their credibility, reliability and understanding, all divided by their level of self-interest.
As credibility, reliability and understanding is low, and egotistical self belief so high, it is no wonder they are at the bottom of the table.
It is not party political - the same can be said of most politicians in all parties. Unsurprisingly the party in power gets most attention.
I do wonder why many become politicians - their pay is modest compared to others with similar ability, their actions are subject to often very unwelcome media attention. They may set the general direction but they do not run the country - the civil service do that. They may as well wear a sign on their back "give me a good kicking"!
Their are exceptions - albeit few. Otherwise I can only assume their political ambitions are driven by the egotistical belief they can make a difference - although few ever do.
|
With some exceptions I do not agree that their pay is modest compared to their ability. I have dealt with a few MPs over the years and I think the problem is that their ability is often limited. We get what we pay for on average. Modest pay, modest ability.
For every Rishi Sunak or Hilary Benn (heavyweights even if you disagree with them) you have your lightweights such as Gavin Williamson or Diane Abbott. It averages out.
Paying more for the right people wouldn’t be popular with the press or Twitter so will probably never happen. Or if it did we’d get the same shower of cronies as now at a higher cost.
There is no simple answer but a start would be for politicians to abide by their own rules and not treat the public like fools. But I’d be a fool to expect it to happen……Catch22?
|
I'm listening to the radio and there are various people (MPs??) coming on and defending what has just taken place.... it stinks.. the whole way it's been done with little to no debate... plus the make-up of 'new' committee is really only going to have one pre-decided outcome.
Again it stinks... but will the general public take this onboard???
|
>> Again it stinks... but will the general public take this onboard???
>>
Do the general public really care about this sort of behaviour from MPs? They /we don't elect a government or its individuals based on honesty and high moral standards, they elect whoever sells themselves best at GE time.
As Mark says, they are not exactly the best of society, whichever side they sit, with a very few exceptions. Help their buddies when in power, sanctimonious in their condemnation when in opposition.
|
>> Here is the report into Pattersons "crimes"
I linked directly to the pdf of the Committee report upthread.
Does your use of quotes suggest you think his offending is not all that serious?
|
>> Does your use of quotes suggest you think his offending is not all that serious?
no. I have no doubts he was aware of what he was doing, and thought rules were beneath him
|
So as part of the judgement they discuss aggravating factors:
No previous case of paid advocacy has seen so many breaches or such a clear pattern of behaviour in failing to separate private and public interests.
Mr Paterson’s financial remuneration from Randox and Lynn’s amounted to nearly three times his annual parliamentary salary.
Mr Paterson's actions demonstrate a failure to uphold the Seven Principles of Public Life.
Mr Paterson has made serious, personal, and unsubstantiated allegations against the integrity of the Commissioner and her team.
Mr Paterson is a former Minister, and an experienced long-serving Member of the House.
Maybe it wasn't quite the crime of the century but these points alone are pretty damning, particularly being a former minister so knowing what is expected, and the failure to uphold the principles.
There are some mitigating factors but not enough to balance the aggravating ones.
|
...I see some of the more forthright senior supporters of Paterson (and Paterson himself) have suggested that the Standards Commissioner should now resign.
That is in the light of his "sentence" merely being suspended by the process they've started, not overturned. Rather presumptuous, I think, and entirely in keeping with the egregious (to re-use a word) behaviour to date.
|
>> Do the general public really care about this sort of behaviour from MPs? They /we
>> don't elect a government or its individuals based on honesty and high moral standards, they
>> elect whoever sells themselves best at GE time.
Commentator on the radio making exactly that point this morning. Either they don't care or the public expect them to be corrupt.
It can however suddenly swing the other way as happened in the latter years of Major's administration.
|
I care.
They put quangos in place to effectively monitor and create rules for the industry that I work in that require me to be have a background check and follow the rules to the letter or face the sack and colleagues have been sacked for even minor breaches of the rules.
It really does feel like one set of rules for them and another for us.
|
|
...Breaking News. Seems like they might have woken up and smelt the coffee... (or read the papers)
|
I have speed read the summary - he did do wrong but it scarcely qualifies as a major crime.
One does wonder whether it was his personal skills which justified an income several times his parliamentary salary, or whether in reality it was payment for his contacts as a politician.
Predictably political opponents want to make capital out of this. Were the situation reversed, Labour in power, I am certain the Tories would react similarly.
That his political allies come out in his defence is unsurprising - were the situation reversed Labour would likely do likewise. Need to go back 12 years or more to find examples.
Sanctimonious disapproval founded on political leaning has no real substance - it is simply an exercise in hypocrisy.
Changing the rules mid-case probably has the effect of letting Paterson off the hook - it is wrong in principle. The "sentence" should stick and the rules changed subsequently.
All this charade demonstrates is that it is no surprise politicians are bottom of the trust league tables. The "case" may simply have been a witch-hunt or reaction to a failure to get traction on other possible abuses of power (eg: Covid contracts)
The "Woke" solution would be to deny all politicians any involvement in outside business activities to avoid the risk that some may abuse their power. This would just encourage more egocentric numbskulls into public office with less real ability to manage the affairs of the nation.
That an MP has outside interests is generally positive in bringing experience and knowledge that is otherwise be lacking in those who pursue a purely political career.
I want the best people for the job, rewarded sufficiently well that all who wish to serve are financially able to do so. A governance framework needs to have the authority to act on material breaches- be they financial misconduct, anti-semitism, bullying, racism etc etc.
|
I can't say I've read every report and link. Seems to me though the amount of money he was being paid wouldn't really be vfm if all he was going to do was write out a couple of safety concerns to a minister.
However that's not to say there isn't something wrong with the process of investigating MPs, there may well be, even if they have come to the right conclusion here.
Pity both issues have been tied together.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 4 Nov 21 at 11:41
|
Changing the rules won't make it any less wrong even if it gets him off the hook.
If a politician is lobbying for someone, then he shouldn't be taking money from them. Certainly not an amount equivalent to another annual salary. Whatever the rules say.
There is absolutely no shame now. What happened to probity in public life?
|
|
...apparently, mot people have stopped caring about it....
|
|
They've never cared. They failed my Cortina for no good reason.
|
|
....that's the (Mo)tories for you.....
|
|
And they just sent me a tax demand for £100 quid, and all because they cant count and take it properly in the first place. Probably paid for Pattersons free lunch on the Palace of Westminster terrace today.
|
...are you sure you haven't misread your winter fuel payment?
(If not, you've probably just funded mine :-) )
|
>> ...are you sure you haven't misread your winter fuel payment?
>>
>> (If not, you've probably just funded mine :-) )
No I got the 200 winter fuel payment in the same posts.
They giveth and they taketh away (on the same day by two different departments)
|
>>What happened to probity in public life?
It will all get sorted, Jacob is on the job.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59163961
|
...yup; Chiltern Hundreds here he comes.
How long before he's Lord Paterson.....?
(Or Sir Les Paterson?)
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Thu 4 Nov 21 at 14:42
|
If there is something wrong with the rules then they should be reviewed and changed, but not in the middle of an ongoing process. It should have been done before.
The fact that is was done at this point, right or wrong, was always going to create an absolute s*** storm and it would have been stupid to think otherwise.
I maintain that his 'crimes' don't seem particularly severe, but nonetheless, he should have known, probably did know, that he was breaking the rules and so there can't really be any complaint.
I notice a comment that said his suspension would have resulted in a by election. I'm sure that was neither the reason that the Government was so keen to stop it nor the reason that the Labour party was so desperate to enforce it.
|
...It has never (for all but a few) been much to do with Paterson.
AIUI, he wasn't informed of the U-turn by his party/the Government: the news was broken to him by a journalist.
The widespread suspicion amongst political commentators is that it was a subterfuge to clip the wings of the commissioner before her review of the still outstanding cases (a good few against Boris), and in revenge for her findings to date (there is an interesting tally of miscreants in one of the rags).
|
|
Either way, the timing of this by BoJo and his advisors was stupidity of immense proportions.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 4 Nov 21 at 20:24
|
...yeah: you know you've got an incompetent Government when they can't even deliver on sleaze and corruption....
I think the timing might have been dictated by the progress of the outstanding cases...
|
>>...yeah: you know you've got an incompetent Government when they can't even deliver on sleaze and corruption... you realise it has got politicians in it.
Improved that for you.
|
>> ...yeah: you know you've got an incompetent Government when they can't even deliver on sleaze
>> and corruption....
>>
>> I think the timing might have been dictated by the progress of the outstanding cases...
They could wait a few days. The sensible would have throw Patterson to the wolves with barely a whimper, then complain about the process and squeeze in a vote for the lifeboat before the next embarrassing round.
Now they have screwed it.
|
>> The issue is not whether he received payment or not, as this income was declared.
>> The issue is whether his acts were ones which were allowed or not.
I'm not convinced that the position of an MP accused of malfeasance is actually that different to the ordinary workplace.
If I were accused of misconduct at work it would be investigated by a manager. There'd be a hearing at which I can be assisted by a colleague.
If I'm aggrieved by the outcome I can seek an appeal/review probably involving one of the charity's trustees.
Paterson was investigated by the Commissioner. Her report was reviewed by the LAbour chaired Select Committee who heard further representations from Paterson. Only then did they produce a report to the house endorsing the Commissioner's conclusions.
But, wail the MPs the employee can go to the Employment Tribunal.
There now seems to be a suggestion of another tier, perhaps chaired by a Judge, to hear MP appeals.
Meanwhile are bets being taken on the style Baron Paterson will take upon his elevation to the Peerage?
|
Seems to me MPs want to pick and choose whether they should follow normal employment rules or have their own.
I seem to remember in some other scandal, that MPs couldn't possibly have a similar system to everyone else they could only be 'judged' by their own, in a system they voted for.
Now it seems they want appeals etc in exactly the same way as everybody else.
|
There is a fundamental doctrine embedded in many other democracies - separation of powers requires that the principal institutions of state— executive, legislature and judiciary—should be clearly divided in order to safeguard citizens' liberties and guard against tyranny.
Part of the problem is that the UK does not have a written constitution which means that politicians make up the rules as they go along - I have no confidence that a Labour government would behave any differently.
Examples of the abuse of political power have increased in recent years - eg: proroguing parliament during Brexit debates, abusing the royal prerogative, and now trying to change the rules mid-stream for Paterson.
Go back a decade or more and "call me Tone" Blair fabricated stories about weapons of mass destruction to pursue a conflict in which he may have believed, but many did not.
Everything changes, but nothing changes!
|
All the indications are that Boris is going to take a proper kicking in the House over the next few days.
There is little to be said about his integrity, but I must admit to being surprised at his stupidity. What the hell else did he think was going to happen?
As the very best, he took someone else's word for what was going on rather than checking for himself. Most likely though he simply thinks he's above the rules of mere mortals.
John Major is joining in, and I suspect he remains bitter about how we was treated all those years ago by the party for considerable less than Johnson is doing.
I wonder what will take first place, Paterson, dodgy seats in the HoL, refurbished flats or holidays in Marbella. I might run a sweepstake.
It was always going to be day to day life that would do for Johnson, he's incompetent at it.
He is only surviving because of the incompetence on the other side of the house. If they would get their act together something might change.
I'm not holding my breath.
|
>>He is only surviving because of the incompetence on the other side of the house
And the cowardice/lack of talent of fellow Conservative MPs.
While Boris is dishing out the gravy to his chums no-one wants to throw him off the train quite yet.
|
|
Seems he's not going to the HoL, whether he was or it was just a rumour...
|
Historically honours are just about even on appointments to HoL.
Since 1958, 1517 life peer have been appointed - 481 Tory, 509 Labour, the rest liberal and cross party.
The most generous prime ministers are Tony Blair - 374 including 162 Labour. Followed by David Cameron - 245 including 110 Tory.
Boris is of course relatively new to the game having had only a couple of years practice at prime ministerial patronage. It is just speculation as to whether he may exceed his predecessors (although unlikely to last long enough).
|
>> Historically honours are just about even on appointments to HoL.
The House is now, apart from Bishops and residual hereditaries, composed pretty much wholly of life peers. It's therefore no surprise that people get appointed. The changes after the last reform, when hereditaries went will have weighed on the number of appointments in the years following.
The current issue isn't about numbers per se but about 13 appointees who made donations worth millions. It's established fact that there were similar issues in the Blair years.
Does either party currently have an appetite for the next phase of reform?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 8 Nov 21 at 10:17
|
Does either party currently have an appetite for the next phase of reform?
>>
>>
I doubt it, its in the too difficult pile, it suits both parties at the moment, there's no real push to do anything about it. Plus the strange nature of appointments means both sides can say, but but they are worse!
It'll come to a head at some point though, we can't keep shoving people in the HoL.
|
From the Times...
"Boris Johnson refuses to apologise over failed bid to protect Owen Paterson"
You don't really need the article, you'll get it all from the headline.
The only thing marginally more annoying than Johnson believing that he is untouchable and that this will all bounce off the electorate is the fact that it appears he may well be correct.
|
Here’s a question. If and when BJ gets the bullet, how does it affect him?
His income will multiply considerably, he has made enough friends and IoUs that effectively means he is sorted for life.
So become PM, take short term hit financially while you put all your ducks in a row and then be ready to milk it when you leave.
He can ask Blair if he needs any advice.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59228882
>>
>>
>> More trouble
That one's quite interesting.
He was a practicing QC, appointed on merit, before being elected. Served as Attorney General but lost the job post 2019. Too independent in giving advice? Replaced by Suella Braverman who has none of his legal clout and got her QC by the politicians route.
Practicing law, like medicine, doesn't have the smell or risk of corruption that was the downfall of Owen Paterson. Cox's earnings at the Bar have been in the spotlight before and he resigned from the Committee on Standards and the Committee on Privileges after a previous half million or so was disclosed c2016. Latterly he was acting for the British Virgin Islands on 'Tax Haven' issues. There are good reasons to be wary of condemning Barristers because their clients have a bad smell.
I guess the £900k in play now and the previous half million were gross fees; a lot less after Chambers expenses etc are deducted. Would be interesting to know how long it took to earn that dosh and how the interests of his constituents were secured if he was away for ages.
Generally, I think it's between him, the constituency party and his electorate. He won the seat from the LDs and would be vulnerable to their potential rise from the ashes.
OTOH IDS, who seems to have accepted money from a manufacturer of Hand Sanitiser while simultaneously having a role in approving such products, is looking green around the gills.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 10 Nov 21 at 10:55
|
If the extent of it is taking video conference calls in a pandemic in his office, then I am untroubled and it seems just bitterness from the LD.
IDS taking money for offering advice in something so directly related to his responsibilities seems like quite a different matter, assuming it is as reported. That must surely be close to out and out criminal corruption.
|
Guardian reporting the Kier Starmer did legal work after being elected an MP:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/10/keir-starmer-did-legal-work-on-top-of-his-job-as-mp-records-show
Gave up his practising certificate after the Labour Party tightened the rules and before becoming leader.
|
This is getting ridiculous. It's just mudslinging for the sake of it.
National headline news - "Keir Starmer behaves reasonably, decently and within the rules. Media outraged"
All this because the media loved the attention the got over the last couple of years and don't want to give it up now.
|
Folk need to be clear whether their views on this are driven by:
1. The principle that the integrity of an MP may be compromised or that their political actions motivated by self interest - eg: cash for questions
2. Amounts paid are unjustifiably large, may be morally questionable but not dishonest
3. That doing other work means they inadequately serve their constituents
4. That they are using facilities funded by the taxpayer for private purposes.
(1) is clearly corrupt, (2) may be a product of moral outrage, anger or envy but not wrong (3) assuming transparency, consitituents can express their views at the next election (4) proportionality counts - using the office telephone may be trivial, entertaining business contacts for fancy lunch in Westminster may not.
Sir Geoffrey Cox manages to provide material for speculation on all counts. A very capable, clever man behaving very stupidly??
|
>> National headline news - "Keir Starmer behaves reasonably, decently and within the rules. Media outraged"
>>
I wonder whether Starmer's office released the information to pre-empt any 'expose'.
£26,500 in gross fees won't get you a lot from a Barrister of Starmer's standing. I actually wonder if he was paid to tie up a few overhanging bits from his time as DPP.
|
I really despise the shower of s***s Bojo has surrounded himself with.
Snakes to a man/woman.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59298861
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59475547
No investigation against Cox. Surprised thought he'd be the next one for the chopping block.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59475547
>>
>> No investigation against Cox. Surprised thought he'd be the next one for the chopping block.
The actual offending, using his Commons office/PC, seemed pretty slight even if proven.
It's up to his constituency's electors to say if knocking off a gross £1m a year Barristering is compatible with his responsibilities to them.
Outside work on that scale used to be commonplace when the House mostly sat after 5pm.
Should it be different now.
|
The actual offence of possibly using a publically funded laptop or office is trivial and in my view not worth pursuing.
But his constituents are lumbered with an MP who may do little to support their needs, but whose connections have found him a very safe seat (majority 24000 in 2019).
Realistically he is unlikely to be unseated until he retires, or upsets Tory central office. That he earns what by most standards is a huge salary makes it all rather unattractive - but not necessarily dishonest.
|
Reports are that JRM is now under the Standards spotlight.
|
|
JRM is such a thoroughly unpleasant person that I hope the sky falls in on him. Twice.
|
|
Slippery as a snake in a bath of oil that one, nothing will stick
|
>> Reports are that JRM is now under the Standards spotlight.
>>
>>
What's he been upto?
|
>> What's he been upto?
Issue with whether financial transactions are properly registered:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59491565
|
>> But his constituents are lumbered with an MP who may do little to support their
>> needs, but whose connections have found him a very safe seat (majority 24000 in 2019).
I do wonder what he gets out of it. He isn't doing it for the salary. And if it's from a desire to serve his country, you'd think he'd want to spend more time at it.
Perhaps it's what one does, recognition, seat in the Lords, 'influence'etc.
It's not clear whether he's a good constituency MP but local Conservative members reportedly don't see much of him.
inews.co.uk/news/politics/geoffrey-cox-devon-constituency-torridge-reaction-1296883
|
The Beeb article links to a Mail article where the story broke.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10199503/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-broken-rules-not-declaring-6million-cheap-loans.html
Part of it's headline says "The Leader of the Commons borrows up to £2.94 a year in 'director's loans'".
Made me smile.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 1 Dec 21 at 13:28
|
Well £2.94 is certainly not worth making a fuss about ;) But I’m not sure I see a particular issue with directors loans anyway, if my understanding of the tax around them is correct. Which it might not be…
But, I think if the directors loan account was negative at corporation tax year end then corporation tax at 32.5% is payable by the company. So on £2.94m that’s knocking on for a million quid. Reclaimable when the loan is repaid mind you.
If the director ‘pays’ interest on the loan at a market rate then HMRC deem no benefit, and no BIK tax is paid. If the interest rate is lower than market then there is a BIK and that’s taxed via PAYE or self assessment. It’s the interest BIK on a lower than market rate loan that should be declared I expect.
Anyone with their own company can do the same, though probably don’t as the corp tax take can be a bit of a cash-flow issue. MPs are required to declare taxable expenses, allowances and benefits, which the loan isn’t though possibly the interest is depending on the rate paid. What if he borrowed from a bank? What if the company was a bank? The man’s an idiot, but I’m not sure I care much which entity he’s borrowed money from. Much as unions lend and give MPs money all the time, some of which is declared, those with companies can do the same and I’m about as interested in both…
|
The real question is whether he has broken either the law or the standards to which MPs are subject. If yes, there should be an appropriate sanction depending on the seriousness. If no, there is nothing further to be said.
Whether you like his political views or not is unimportant. That he had a privileged education and upbringing is irrelevant. That he seems to have been very successful in business and married into money is not a reason for criticism.
That he has chosen a particular public persona (entitled toff) may annoy but is fundamentally no different to the arrogant self confidence of many sports folk, actors and artistes.
Many comments seem driven by anger or envy. This is simply unworthy and demeans the critic, not Rees-Mogg.
Personally I wonder why he bothers with a career under such public scrutiny. I doubt he does it for the death threats and constant criticism. Does he see it as an amusing diversion, a way to fill his time. Does he feel committed to public service and feel his contribution is of real value.
|
>> Personally I wonder why he bothers with a career under such public scrutiny. I doubt
>> he does it for the death threats and constant criticism. Does he see it as
>> an amusing diversion, a way to fill his time. Does he feel committed to public
>> service and feel his contribution is of real value.
Power and influence. And vanity.
|
Yip he explained why in his own words. I’ll try and find it.
But as a kid, his ambition was to become Prime Minister once he has made his millions and been the boss of GEC.
|
Here you go, half way down this page.
What an arrogant t***. But an insight into his upbringing.
www.thenational.scot/news/19543475.jacob-rees-mogg-12-year-old-unearthed-french-interview/
Last edited by: Bobby on Thu 2 Dec 21 at 08:08
|
OTOH you could say that it's impressive for someone to have ambitions at that age, and even more impressive that those ambitions don't seem to have changed much, that he's gone a long way towards achieving them, and that it's a shame that isn't a bit more common. Just his ambitions were more grand than many.
I had a classroom colleague who was always quite ambitious and he ended up being the first barrister by age 40 (at the time), is now a Lord and has been involved in some very high profile cases. He wasn't at all an arrogant t***.
Some people are just more driven than others.
Not saying I like JRM but there are two sides...
|
What separates the likes of Rees-Mogg from top sportsmen and women?
They all start out with advantages. JRM had the good fortune to enjoy a privileged upbringing - good education etc. Sports folk typically have the good fortune to be winners in the genetic lottery with exceptional hand/eye coordination, athletic physique, good health etc.
They understood at an early age what they want and set out to achieve it. They make considerable sacrifices in pursuit of their goals, and many who try ultimately fail. Getting to the top in any walk of life requires sharp elbows, focus, drive ambition etc.
Those who succeed often make large amounts of money, receive public acclaim and/or awards (sir, lord, dame etc). That people make lots of money in business is no more or less acceptable than footballers, actors, musicians etc who do similarly.
They also all get unpleasant, intrusive and unwelcome media scrutiny from time to time. I don't envy their success and the challenges it brings - although sometimes a little more cash would be nice!
|
>>What separates the likes of Rees-Mogg from top sportsmen and women?
Why the need for separation? How would that justify anything?
Rees-Mogg is a thoroughly unpleasant man. Some sportsmen and women are thoroughly unpleasant also. I don't understand the connection.
I couldn't give a stuff about Rees-Moggs priv'd upbringing, his good education, blah de blah blah, why bring that into it?
He is unpleasant, conceited, arrogant and bigoted.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/jacob-rees-mogg-brexit-debate-lying-down-boris-johnson-tories-ed-miliband-a9091156.html
t***.
|
|
Amazing. Apart from getting married, it seems the die was already cast when he was 12, he hasn't changed much at all.
|
FM2R
changed your view?
"He is to be admired and complimented, not voted for mind you, but certainly admired and complimented."
You may accuse me of taking out of context, but...........
|
I meant to ask this on Friday when I heard it...
Apparently one of the ministers caught up in the resent issues had offered his resignation (sorry can't remember his name) not long after the 'party' lady did.
His resignation was rejected....
So you want to leave your job and your resignation is not accepted how does your work force you to turn up each day?
|
|
They can't of course. One can insist on resigning but it's all game playing really. Offer to fall on your sword, get told that's not necessary and they still support you, walk away virtuously.
|
>> They can't of course. One can insist on resigning but it's all game playing really.
>> Offer to fall on your sword, get told that's not necessary and they still support
you, walk away virtuously.
>>
the highlighted phrase also means get thrown to the wolves later when politically expedient
|
>> I meant to ask this on Friday when I heard it...
>>
>> Apparently one of the ministers caught up in the resent issues had offered his resignation
>> (sorry can't remember his name) not long after the 'party' lady did.
>>
>> His resignation was rejected....
>>
>> So you want to leave your job and your resignation is not accepted how does
>> your work force you to turn up each day?
I think the person offering their resignation was a staff member, possibly the press officer named as having handed out awards at one of the non event events.
Not a question of wanting to leave I think.
The resignation was offered on the same basis as the woman in the press conference mess; position untenable. If the PM thought that wasn't the case (and he has previous for this) then he carries on.
EDIT - Wot NoFM said.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 13 Dec 21 at 10:04
|
|
He takes the fall after the enquiry - if he goes now, who do they boot after the enquiry reports?
|
>> He takes the fall after the enquiry - if he goes now, who do they
>> boot after the enquiry reports?
How long before the inquiry reports though? Don't think they've appointed a chair and members or set a remit yet. Given that next GE could be as soon as 2023 the likelihood is the inquiry will not report until after the GE.
OTOH Boris faces fires now on multiple fronts. The parties thing is pretty damaging but may, at least for the quiz thing be overhyped. If people who have to gather round their desks to do their jobs gather round later for a quiz then that's not in the same league as crammed in cheek by jowl.
Of he was telling lies, or at least being economical with the truth, to Lord Geidt over funding the flat refurbishments that has got, as one reporter put it, feathers.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 13 Dec 21 at 13:00
|
Boris can delay an election until December 2024. Under the 5 year parliaments act the only way it can be held earlier is if there is a 2/3 majority.
The Tories have 365 seats at the moment - not enough to unilaterally decide to have an early election. But if the Tories offered, would Labour or SNP vote against - not likely as it would evidence of a lack of confidence.
2023 is unlikely for the next election unless the Tories feel they can comfortably win. Despite the foolishness of some Tory MPs planning to vote against the government on Covid restrictions, it seems unlikely they would vote against the government in any sort of confidence vote.
|
>> Boris can delay an election until December 2024. Under the 5 year parliaments act the
>> only way it can be held earlier is if there is a 2/3 majority.
I understand the government are committed to repealing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The current Elections Bill does not deal with the point but the intention is probably for a short bill with only enough clauses to repeal and restore the status quo ante.
I agree the government would be unlikely to lose a simple no confidence vote.
Whether it could, with the Fixed Term Parliaments act still in force, call an early election is interesting.
Two years ago there seemed to be a determination to hold Johnson's feet to the fire over Brexit but various interests, not least the LibDems under Jo Swinson, caved in and allowed the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019 to pass. It would be interesting to see whether opposition parties facing defeat in an election proposed by government and on the back of incentives like tax cuts allowed such an election to go ahead.
If the Covid inquiry were running by then and could be expedited then a 'feet to fire' argument might have legs.
|
>>. The parties thing is pretty damaging
Is it though? The media and other parties certainly keep shouting that it is,and talk of fury and outrage. Yet I don't get the sense of much more than laughter and mickey taking.
Obviously you're closer than I am, do you sense different?
I mean amongst the 'ordinary' person rather than those with a vested interest.
|
You dont need to sense it.
Check today's opinion polls for a Westminster election, and compare to last month, or even 2 weeks ago. They have changed materially, and significantly, since the party story broke. The Tory lead has been reversed.
Last edited by: Alanovich on Mon 13 Dec 21 at 14:50
|
The "parties" issue is an exercise in self-righteous indignation. I don't believe for one moment it was only he and his Tory friends who partied - just that no one has exposed any opposition abuse of guidance or rules (yet).
Opinion polls two years into a five year term are irrelevant. That Boris can morph from hero in 2019 to villain today is evidence that polls are based on the superficial and immediate, not deep rooted policy and moral judgements.
It is pure speculation what the situation will be in two/three years time - Covid, unemployment, economic growth, residual Brexit fallout, state of the NHS, etc etc.
Over the next two years (possibly sooner than later) the Tory party may decide to dump Boris if he no longer seems an electoral asset. Equally if Sir Kier proves incapable of sustained break through (he has failed thus far) his future will be threatened.
|
>> The "parties" issue is an exercise in self-righteous indignation. I don't believe for one moment
>> it was only he and his Tory friends who partied - just that no one
>> has exposed any opposition abuse of guidance or rules (yet).
IMHO it goes way beyond self righteousness. As already stated the quiz thing is marginal but Johnson clearly at least condoned it. The MP for Cleethorpes on Radio 4 yesterday suggesting Executive Grade junior managers should be disciplined for failing to stop it was way off beam.
The issue at No10 is also Johnson's Billy Bunter style statements that there were no parties but any that were complied with the law is laughable.*
Other departments including No11 and Education have 'come clean' and explained given notice of regret. I'd be amazed if Starmer and the Lib Dem, SNP etc leaders at Westminster have not obtained clear assurances that their offices and those of their deputies and spokespeople have not got skeletons in their closet.
>> Over the next two years (possibly sooner than later) the Tory party may decide to
>> dump Boris if he no longer seems an electoral asset. Equally if Sir Kier proves
>> incapable of sustained break through (he has failed thus far) his future will be threatened.
They will dump Boris; just a question of when. Starmer's USP is to look like a competent technocrat in the mould of Attlee. Whether that can work in the Social Media era is another question. Although Boris seems to have his measure to a degree at PMQs he does so only by blustering and repeating the same old stuff.
How he'd fare against say Sunak is open to question but I think he'd need handicapping not to beat Truss or Patel into a cocked hat.
*for the benefit of (any) younger readers Billy Bunter was a fictional rather obese attendee at a minor public or prep school and was famed for pinching other boys' tuck etc. He'd deny that he was in Bob Cherry's study and he never touched the jam buns while he was there (Yahoo!)
|
>> etc. He'd deny that he was in Bob Cherry's study and he never touched the
>> jam buns while he was there (Yahoo!)
>>
Pendant Corner.
It is Yaroo!
Not Yahoo.
Yahoo is an American web services provider.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!
Nowadays these things are more important than ever. We must not let standards slip.
|
>> It is Yaroo!
>>
>> Not Yahoo.
>>
>> Yahoo is an American web services provider.
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!
>>
>> Nowadays these things are more important than ever. We must not let standards slip.
Yaroo it was.
I you want to be pedantically pedantic, the origin of Yahoo is
"...from the name of an imaginary race of brutish creatures in Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726)".
Boris is indeed a Yahoo.
|
>>
>>
>>
>> *for the benefit of (any) younger readers Billy Bunter was a fictional rather obese attendee
>> at a minor public or prep school and was famed for pinching other boys' tuck
>> etc. He'd deny that he was in Bob Cherry's study and he never touched the
>> jam buns while he was there (Yahoo!)
>>
I read virtually all of them when I was at school, Herbert Vernon-Smith being my favourite. They'd never see the light of day now, they were definitely not "Woke". I doubt any LGBT+ pupils would have survived Greyfriars.
Incidently, Charles Hamilton who wrote the books under the name Frank Richards is estimated to have written over 100 million words in his career and has featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's most prolific writer.
|
>> I read virtually all of them when I was at school, Herbert Vernon-Smith being my
>> favourite. They'd never see the light of day now, they were definitely not "Woke". I
>> doubt any LGBT+ pupils would have survived Greyfriars.
I doubt the portrayal of Hurree Jamset Ram Singh would pass muster today either.
|
. Although Boris seems to have his measure to a degree
>> at PMQs he does so only by blustering and repeating the same old stuff.
>>
>> How he'd fare against say Sunak is open to question but I think he'd need
>> handicapping not to beat Truss or Patel into a cocked hat.
>>
>>
Does their 'performance ' (probably the right word) at PMQ actually matter ? Who apart from journalists and a handful of die hard political fans watches them? I suppose they are reported on in newspapers but hardly anyone reads them anymore anyway.
|
>> Is it though? The media and other parties certainly keep shouting that it is,and talk
>> of fury and outrage. Yet I don't get the sense of much more than laughter
>> and mickey taking.
As our old friend Alanovich says says there are a number of indicators that the public are offended by the parties.
It's not just people who perhaps lost relatives putting themselves forwards for the media, MP's are reporting vast amounts of email from their constituents. Some of that could be stirred up by opposition but I've not had anything from Labour to prompt me.
|
MP's
>> are reporting vast amounts of email from their constituents.
I'd take such reports with a large pinch of salt, they wouldn't happen to be opposition MPs?
|
>> I'd take such reports with a large pinch of salt, they wouldn't happen to be
>> opposition MPs?
No they were Conservatives.
|
|
I stand corrected, I'd still be sceptical about vast numbers of emails coming in though.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 13 Dec 21 at 17:28
|
>> >> I'd take such reports with a large pinch of salt, they wouldn't happen to
>> be
>> >> opposition MPs?
>>
>> No they were Conservatives.
I saw that, but I wouldn't trust that group of self-centred, selfish, back-stabbing b******s any more than I would those on the other teams.
I still don't believe it.
|
Reports are that the guy set to lead the investigations into 'party-gate' has himself now been implicated in being at one of the same parties he was going to investigate!.... oh well not to worry as we've been assured that it's 'independent'!
|
>> Reports are that the guy set to lead the investigations into 'party-gate' has himself now
>> been implicated in being at one of the same parties he was going to investigate!....
>> oh well not to worry as we've been assured that it's 'independent'!
There have been suggestions all along that the Cabinet Secretary was an one Downing St gathering or another.
Further reports today allege events in the Cabinet Office at 70 Whitehall during last December's restrictions.
|
>> oh well not to worry as we've been assured that it's 'independent'!
>>
...I think Boris has now decided to "rest his Case".....
|
If Labour manage to find and intelligent, charismatic and effective leader then Johnson is toast.
Starmer isn't it, Corbyn wasn't it, and I don't know them well enough to know if they have more impressive performers in the wings. But right now the performance of the Labour party in genera is one of Johnson's greatest assets.
It might be his only one.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 17 Dec 21 at 18:39
|
Starmer's not bad but it doesn't help that he has to tread a path between marketable policies and detractors in his own party. When he was giving Johnson what for at PMQ's Rayner was sitting next to him looking as of she was sucking a very bitter lemon. Perhaps she was just pensive.
I don't think Starmer is very good at consulting colleagues, possibly he's not 'political' enough for his job. He strikes me as a sound technocrat rather than a leader.
It's a bit of a cliche but you do seem to get the yin and the yang with charismatic leaders, outstanding qualities but big blind spots or character flaws. Perhaps it's something to do with risk taking. It's hard to imagine Starmer indulging in risky behaviour, which might make appear boring - the famously grey John Major was a buccaneer in comparison.
|
|
I noticed Alex Salmond tweeting today along the lines of why would the SNP be wanting Boris to get the bullet as he is one of the biggest assets for the independence campaign currently!
|
>> I noticed Alex Salmond tweeting today along the lines of why would the SNP be
>> wanting Boris to get the bullet as he is one of the biggest assets for
>> the independence campaign currently!
Yeah, he needs Bojo around to make himslef look good.
|
Frost has now resigned.
How many folk have now quit the Brexit post since it started??
|
>> Frost has now resigned.
>> How many folk have now quit the Brexit post since it started??
Lord (David?) Frost?
Not on BBC or Guardian yet but on Bellylaff site:
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/12/18/lord-frost-resigns-covid-plan-b-political-direction-boris-johnsons/
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 18 Dec 21 at 20:41
|
|
Lord Frost reportedly resigns as Brexit minister www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59714241
|
...and just when it was all going so well...
An opportunistic tactical retreat from an impossible job of one's own making: renegotiating a crap agreement negotiated by oneself with people who don't like you, distrust you, and whilst the ink on the original is still wet.
The recent "concession" that the oversight of the ECJ would have to remain was probably a bit of a Damascene moment.
(First law of negotiation: don't ask the other party to perform "unnatural acts").
I suspect he doesn't give a toss about any of the issues he's highlighted as causing his resignation, but realises this is the point where he gets an ideal opportunity for someone else to sort things (unlikely) and/or carry the ultimate can.
Chris Grayling, anyone?
|
It looks like more like he has decided to leave the Boris ship that seems almost certain to run aground or sink. The Omicron rock seems like it is fast approaching.
No doubt hoping there is room in the Tory lifeboat for him to join the other rebels - the King is (nearly) dead, long live the King!
|
It seems I might have done him a disservice.
Apparently he got the hump because he's realised he wasn't invited to any of the parties.
|
He’s not elected though??
Shouldn’t be anywhere near the process.
Mind you, he wasn’t always a Brexiteer
www.thenational.scot/news/19641263.one-quote-brexit-minister-lord-frost-wants-forget/
Bit like Boris!
|
>> agreement negotiated by oneself with people who don't like you, distrust you, and whilst the
>> ink on the original is still wet.
Yeah the bloke has realised he has dug himself a grave. Frankly he is good riddance.
|
He seemed quite competent to me, didn't strike me as a people person. But someone you'd rather have on your side than not.
I'd imagine that there's been a huge amount of churn of personnel on both sides this last couple of years.
|
|
...the comment I read somewhere that Boris's "oven-ready deal" had now been defrosted made me laugh.
|
>> ...the comment I read somewhere that Boris's "oven-ready deal" had now been defrosted made me
>> laugh.
It was always a Turkey.
|
>> He seemed quite competent to me,
Competent? Can you list his recent success's? Thos with legs that will stick?
|
He was clearly complicit in the NI shambles, failing to resolve fishing quotas, getting import/export rules agreed, compromises over ECJ etc.
Possibly not all his fault - he may even have tried valliantly to get it right. But I can only assume he prefers to exit with an illusion of dignity, rather than take responsibility.
|
>> He seemed quite competent to me, didn't strike me as a people person. But someone
>> you'd rather have on your side than not.
I don't think he had any credibility at all with the EU. He was the lead negotiator on the NI protocol which he was trying to resile from before the ink was dry.
The ultimate blame of course rests with Johnson. It was he who, meeting the Irish PM in October 19, agreed to the so called border in the Irish Sea as an escape from the Irish Backstop that did for Mrs May.
|
If he and his party were competent - or even acting in our best interest - we wouldn't be where we are with EU trade down ~25%, 5% inflation, such acute shortages, an insoluble problem with NI, a dissolving United Kingdom, and an ongoing, possibly permanent conflict between the isolationists and those who want a functioning relationship with Europe. Granted some of this has been exacerbated by Covid_19 but it's still quite an achievement.
It's hideous. How anybody can think there is any benefit at all in what these selfish, power-crazed crooks (remember the promises) have done defeats me.
I was an anti-federalist. No problem with the customs union, which worked. Free movement was probably having some adverse effects on UK workers but would have resolved eventually and could have been addressed without throwing out the bathwater, the baby and it seems everything in the house that was of value. It's as if they have deliberately destroyed all the good parts of being in the EU rather than trying to preserve them. Political union could not have been worse than what has been achieved.
I have absolutely no doubt now that we have already lost more since Brexit than we ever contributed to the EU.
To add to the bargain, we are now a divided nation with a broken democracy. It's too soon to say how future historians will describe this period in UK politics but I don't think there's much chance of Johnson getting a statue in Trafalgar Square.
That it's even possible to get a mandate to fix this might be in doubt. I don't think the importance of 'social media' as a tool for bad actors to rouse and control a mob can be under-estimated here either, aided by the way the algorithms work, and unless it can be neutralised we might never get out of this spiral of destruction. Maybe that's even more relevant than the referendum result. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say it is breaking down civilisation. Everything depends on how those who grow up with it will understand and use it.
Sounds far too hysterical I know, but I am beginning to think that anybody who isn't worried about Facebook etc. just doesn't understand how they work. It's not a coincidence that everything has gone crazy at the same time, and it doesn't require a conspiracy to explain it.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 21 Dec 21 at 10:21
|
Totally agree with everything you say Manatee. Undoubtedly both the press and social media have a lot to play in what eventual outcomes are.
Re Brexit, I keep thinking about who wanted this, and why.
Ultimately, it goes back to the right wing press who are, effectively, controlling what the government is doing on a day by day basis. BJ doesn’t answer to the plebs, he answers to Music etc.
The levelling up that they often talk about seems more to be a case of separating the elite and paupers rather than trying to bring them closer together.
And don’t start me on voter ID, trying to control Charity Commission, OFCOM, reduce Human Rights etc etc. Anyone who has done the tours of Auschwitz and look into how narrative and messages were controlled, it’s happening before our very eyes.
|
'he answers to Music etc'
What does that mean?
|
|
Sorry, Murdoch not Music!
|
>> Sorry, Murdoch not Music!
>>
Do politicians still worry about newspaper editors and their owners? With newspaper readership in freefall, I wonder when politicians stop worrying about them.
Perhaps it'll be the next generation of politicians that will have grown up not reading or worrying about what they print.
|
>> Totally agree with everything you say Manatee.
So do I.
|
>> Re Brexit, I keep thinking about who wanted this, and why.
Ask the people who voted agitated and pushed for it. Roger, for example, and Pat the selfish cow who dragged us all into the mire and then left us all to it. As I said she would, to her face and she said she didnt care about the fall out.
|
>>Pat the selfish cow
I met her and Ian. Although I wouldn't agree with all her opinions I wouldn't be so rude as to insult her like that! I know you helped her, although, like me, you probably disagreed with some of her thoughts. She worked in a man's world and had to be tough. The Chilean has been banned for what I think are much less objectional reasons.
|
>> world and had to be tough. The Chilean has been banned for what I think
>> are much less objectional reasons.
Clearly you didn't know her well enough, she said she was a selfish cow, she said (in private) far worse things about me - to me and she would not expect anyone to to sanitise stuff just because they have passed on.
And I have said far worse things about you, on here, but I guess thats ok because you are still alive? Death changes nothing. merely cements things in place.
But hey ban me if you like
|
>> I have said far worse things about you, on here
Really, where? I tend to keep out of petty arguments and ignore boorish comments.
|
She told me I was sleazy.
I prefer salacious and smutty.
|
>> She told me I was sleazy.
>>
>> I prefer salacious and smutty.
>>
Salacious (Tory) Smutty (Labour). :-)
|
>> Looks like Starmer likes a beer too
>>
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10403057/Tories-accuse-Keir-Starmer-hypocrite-party-row.html
It's a non story put about originally by The Sun. It's indoors and appears to be socially distanced with people in appropriate casual business dress.
Presumably, if his explanation of a meeting with break for scoff was not consistent with his known engagements, he'd have been outed fully by now.
|
|
I think the pictures about sks have been about for a while. I wonder though if there's more to come so going down the same path as they did with the government, drip, drip, drip...
|
We live in a democracy and enjoy the opportunity to vote a new government every 5 years. The losers are as responsible for losing as the winners for winning.
Boris and his team created a far more convincing argument for exit than remainers did for stay. A triumph of positivity and hope over reality (fear).
He pushed through a deal with obvious major flaws. The opposition which could have mounted a coordinated resistance were incapable of agreeing a common plan.
We got what we voted for and the political opposition messed up. Just for the record I was firmly in the remain camp and have never trusted Boris as Tory leader.
Covid has completely obscured the real fallout from Brexit. It is normal business practice for major projects to define criteria against which outcomes can be judged. We failed to do this with Brexit - we will never know whether it was a success or failure.
Like it or not, we have left. We will not quickly, cheaply or easily rejoin. It is a waste of energy to spend time on a past we cannot change. We need to make what we have been left with work!
|
So for convincing argument you actually mean blatantly lied with the help of his media pals and his rich backers.
|
>> So for convincing argument you actually mean blatantly lied with the help of his media
>> pals and his rich backers.
To be fair I think the Remain side did point out the lies etc. but one of the great discoveries both Leave and Donald Trump made was that lies work. The lie can have more benefit to the liar than the damage done by having the lie called out. This is down to what we have always been aware of but have I now learned to call motivated cognition.
Once people have formed a strong view, virtually all information can be interpreted to bolster it. How common is it to change a strong belief, once formed, with reasoning?
Point out to someone that a politician they admire has lied and they'll say "they all do" or "well that might not be true but he's still right", or "well you/they would say that, wouldn't you/they?".
That has always been there, but now we have social media, which don't require any material level of self-delusion. Once FB or Google knows what you like, that is most of what you see. They don't want to corrupt you, they aren't in anybody's pay to promote white supremacy or a dishonest claim of election fraud, they just need you to keep clicking and by doing so your beliefs will be endlessly validated and reinforced.
With your clicks and likes you will brainwash yourself. If you seek out cat pictures, all you're in danger of is softening of the brain but if your interest is in jihad, the risks of vaccination, or your rights under the constitution to carry an automatic pistol loaded with hollow point when you go bowling, you might never emerge into the daylight.
Social media and personalised search results are now doing for dangerous narcissists and their adherents what the Nuremberg rallies did for the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Much faster acting, and virtually automatic. Add a charismatic figurehead, or presumably in Trump's case enough rabble-rousing TV exposure, and you're off and running.
|
Great posts Manatee.
I recommend again The Social Dilemma docudrama to anyone with Netflix
Here's a trailer www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvg0eY_Ls4Y
|
>> Like it or not, we have left. We will not quickly, cheaply or easily rejoin.
>> It is a waste of energy to spend time on a past we cannot change.
>> We need to make what we have been left with work!
>>
Brilliant post Sir.
|
"Like it or not, we have left. We will not quickly, cheaply or easily rejoin.
It is a waste of energy to spend time on a past we cannot change.
We need to make what we have been left with work!"
I dont recall Farages's disciples saying
Like it or not, we have JOINED . We will not quickly, cheaply or easily rejoin.
It is a waste of energy to spend time on a past we cannot change.
We need to make what we have been left with work!
THE UK Faces a period of sustained economic economic decline and has lost much of its credibility on the world stage as a result of its leaving and and its current choice of leadership. To accept the status quo in the long term is a policy of despair. I will only vote for a party whose long term aim is to rejoin hte EU. I've normally voted Conservative in the past buy I don't see much chance of me voting for them again in the forseaable future
|
And they are at it again.
Another party. BYOB.
FFS.
|
|
..well, I've had some good times at parties, but never to the extent that I need a subsequent inquiry to remind me I was there....
|
|
Mmm, sort of begs the question of why plod didn't notice tens of people sneaking past them into Downing street laden down with Asti and Stella.
|
...everyday occurrence....
Move along please, nothing to see here.
|
Surprised that the guy who wrote email that ITV have got hold of hasn't walked yet....
As has been mentioned the plod were on the door so have a vested interest in not talking this further as it makes someone at a sign-off level complicit.
Is there is something higher than doubling-down??
|
...shamelessly stolen from a Nish Kumar tweet....
"Boris is about a week away from telling Emily Maitlis he is "genetically unable to party""
And anyway, he's pretty sure he was in Pizza Express in Woking at the time.
|
>> ..well, I've had some good times at parties, but never to the extent that I
>> need a subsequent inquiry to remind me I was there....
>>
I've had a stony faced Mrs O'Reliant to remind me I was there...:-(
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 11 Jan 22 at 15:15
|
Boris apologises after admitting that he attended a Downing Street garden drinks party during the first lockdown.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-59966107
|
I'm not much of one for expecting people to resign over stuff but this was a monumental piece of arrogance and insensitivity and it should be considered.
If only there were better candidates...
|
>> I'm not much of one for expecting people to resign over stuff but this was
>> a monumental piece of arrogance and insensitivity and it should be considered.
>>
>> If only there were better candidates...
>>
And therein lies the rub, across the whole political spectrum. I do think that outside the media and Westminster more people are more inclined towards a dishonest but liberal government than they are to a sincere yet authoritarian one…at least the liberal one won’t interfere too much, whereas an authoritarian one will never leave you alone…
|
"at least the liberal one won’t interfere too much"
Yes we wouldnt want a government that puts us all under house arrest and tells os when we can go out and who we can see. That would be terrible
|
>> "at least the liberal one won’t interfere too much"
>>
>> Yes we wouldnt want a government that puts us all under house arrest and tells
>> os when we can go out and who we can see. That would be terrible
>>
I’m not sure we were ever under house arrest were we? But as all the opposition parties were calling for more, sooner, more often I think it’s safe to say we’d have been far worse off with an authoritarian leader. For a start they wouldn’t have given up restrictions so willingly… take a look at Scotland ;)
|
I have no doubt that BJ was aware of, and has admitted attending at least one "gathering". IMHO he was not when elected as leader, nor now, a person of great integrity. He clearly has some real talents, but I would not mourn his departure.
Personally I am not particularly offended by a socially distanced after work event - 40 folk in half an acre of No. 10 garden who may anyway have spent much of the day inside working together. I do however understand why some would be upset and angry.
A senior civil servant, apparently respected by both sides of the political divide, has been appointed to investigate. Justice should consider the evidence and pass judgement accordingly.
However, it seems the media and political opposition (predictably) prefer to rely upon stirring public opinion and disclosures by those whose behaviour has been contemptible.
Even Keir Starmer, a very senior lawyer, who had previously acknowledged that judgement should be based on the evidence, could not contain himself. All far from edifying.
|
Why do the media get the blame again?
As has quite rightly been pointed out by other politicians and others, people could not see their dying or newly born relatives, or see them off properly (in my opinion for very good reasons), and BJ was on TV telling us regularly to reduce contact, not meet others etc.
I wouldn't be so uptight about it if it were someone else (though I must admit I didn't knowingly break the rules at that time) but the bloke who stood in front of us telling us not to do things which he himself then went and did... We were mid -pandemic and socialising was seen as the single most dangerous thing to do.
I only got to see a bit of PMQs and missed any response from other politicians but I am not surprised Starmer and others might have had a field day. That's what happens at PMQs, and has happened for hundreds of years when the govt are caught out.
When someone has admitted guilt what more evidence is required? I know you like to wait and see Terry, and I'm sure you are not alone there, but I've waited and seen this PM drive a tank through different rules, regulations, protocols, procedures and stick up for his mates with a total disregard for those who may have been trampled on the way.
I've seen enough of him really.
|
>> Personally I am not particularly offended by a socially distanced after work event - 40
>> folk in half an acre of No. 10 garden who may anyway have spent much
>> of the day inside working together. I do however understand why some would be upset
>> and angry.
Even from my side of the political fence I agree that, pragmatically, there is little harm when people working cheek by jowl in No10 decant to the garden. The law at the time though prevented social gatherings and when invitees are asked to 'byob' it stops being work.
When I started in the Civil Service in the seventies drinking in the office was fairly common. By the time I left it was close to being banned.
Ms Grey should be allowed to do her job but the idea that her inquiry should determine whether BoJo attended the May 20th gathering was for the birds.
I'm honestly not sure how far the fuss is 'got up by the media'. As Smokie says I think there are people out there who's parent's funerals were tightly restricted who ar (rightly) outraged.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Jan 22 at 17:18
|
>> I'm honestly not sure how far the fuss is 'got up by the media'. As
>> Smokie says I think there are people out there who's parent's funerals were tightly restricted
>> who ar (rightly) outraged.
>>
I can't get very excited about this. The only people that would potentially and theoretically be harmed by a social gathering would be the participants themselves.
People who couldn't go to a loved one's funeral were being proteceted from themselves, nobody else.
|
>>
>>
>>
>> I can't get very excited about this. The only people that would potentially and theoretically
>> be harmed by a social gathering would be the participants themselves.
>>
>>
>>
And everyone they subsequently came into contact with, at a time when the virus was running rife and there was no vaccine.
|
I'm finding current behaviours of the media and politicians all rather childish and destabilising. Iys going on day after day.
Id rather they actually got on with something positive like getting the country on its feet again after Covid and the utter cluster---- that has been Brexit.
|
Boris's track record of lying and cronyism since his pre-politics days through to the present should see him barred from public office.
Period.
|
...even the Torygraph seem to have fallen.
Reporting more boozy parties in no 10, including the evening of the DoE's funeral. 8-)
Anyone want to start a sweepstake on how many hours he's got?
|
I've had a total news blackout today as I'm dog-tired of it all. It's been a nice day, so I've been outside a lot, putting a load of kiln-dried logs away.
Listened to DSOTM and some Doors on the Lo-Fi, watched I Escaped to the Country and got the log burner going.
For dinner, I did sausages, chips, beans and tomatoes - we live well down here doncha know.
I may well just get my news via C4P in future - far more entertaining.
|
From a tweet somewhere:
"You are no longer required to isolate if a family member tests positive for Covid, as long as you are fully vaccinated. In cancelling engagements today, Johnson is now following guidelines which do not even exist, having constantly broken rules that were actually in place."
|
Dog....what kind of sausages do you favour ?
Our local butcher, the only butcher, does a lovely Toulouse banger. I often have a few unwrapped in the fridge and love the smell. Cumberland sausage, grilled and served with relish is another favourite, as are pork & black pudding bangers.
4 sausages, 4 slices of bread made into two sandwiches, is a decent meal. Those chefs on the box serving up meals with ingredients I’ve never heard of wouldn’t be impressed. Not much washing up either. 1 plate. 1 knife.
|
>>Cumberland sausage, grilled and served...
Mrs Z surprised me by bringing lunch to me in my office today (well yesterday now considering the time).
Three Cumberland sausages, fried egg, fried bread, baked beans, black pudding, mushroom, a spicy bubble and squeak concoction and a nice mug of tea.
It was delicious.
Shame it happens only about once every quarter!
|
>> Mrs Z surprised me by bringing lunch to me in my office today (well yesterday
>> now considering the time).
>>
>> Three Cumberland sausages, fried egg, fried bread, baked beans, black pudding, mushroom, a spicy bubble
>> and squeak concoction and a nice mug of tea.
Three sausages!! What a very healthy meal?
She is trying to get rid of you!
|
>>Dog....what kind of sausages do you favour ?
Well LL, the ole woman does the shopping, so it's M&S bangers or Waitrose if we have a delivery.
I like Cumberland sausages too. I'm an ingredient checker, so if there's anything 'dodgy' in 'em, I won't eat it.
She bought some pork slices last week - they con-tained sugar and cream FFS - straight in the bin, I wouldn't even give 'em to my dogs.
Best to fry bangers IMO but, it makes too much mess, so I do them in the oven (fan) 30 mins @ 170 turn 'em half way through.
I've tried some faux bangers, including some made with beetroot to simulate blood. Not too bad in 2 thick slices of my homemade wholemeal bread plus some English mustard, but I wouldn't want to eat them on their own, with chips for instance.
Best bangers I had were in Dresden, from a stall by the river - big long things in a bap-like roll.
|
We get these in patties, I don't really like sausages but make an exception for these. Delicious.
www.unclehenrys.co.uk/shop/the-shop/lincolnshire-sausage
|
I like Lincolnshire sausages too. I even had a spell on these veggie ones at one time.
Fried in sesame seed oil - even the dogs liked 'em :)
www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/282120806
|
>> I like Lincolnshire sausages too. I even had a spell on these veggie ones at
>> one time.
>> www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/282120806
>>
Those don't seem to be available at the moment, but I'll try them when they are. I rate these, however, and recall the Cumberland version coming top in a tasting session:
www.cauldronfoods.co.uk/products/sausages
|
>>I rate these, however, and recall the Cumberland version coming top in a tasting session:
Available in Tesco's I see. I'll get the ole woman to get some and give them a try.
www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/266752278
|
Tories taking the p now. - No FM2R
