When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[Gloster]

Now whilst Football is important to a lot of people, it's hardly the biggest issue which needs dealing with. Certainly not on the same level as many of the things which need sorting out.

Unfortunately, this is just the sort of thing that could make some voters support the Conservatives. As we have seen, there have been plenty of people recently who didn’t want Abramovich sanctioned as it was far more important to them (and they weren’t all Chelsea supporters) that football continued unaffected on its own planet than to try to stop a vicious war. Whether it will succeed is another matter: it could be a major embarrassment if they mess it up. They could put Rees-Mogg in charge as he is sure to have a deep emotional attachment to the game, dating back to when pater gave him his first footie bat.

 

[PG]

Now whilst Football is important to a lot of people, it's hardly the biggest issue which needs dealing with. Certainly not on the same level as many of the things which need sorting out.

While true, it is (unfortunately IMO) also true that some only perceive the seriousness of a situation (e.g. Storm Arwen) if it affects football matches.

 

[david1212]

Without quoting numerous of the above posts reducing the MOT test frequency to 2years is a bad idea. Not everyone has their car regularly serviced so an enforceable check and report on tyres, brakes, steering, lights, wipers etc is important for road safely.

IMO the government could cut taxation for every person not just each vehicle simply by more than £30 pa just by cutting wastage and increasing efficiency.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Without quoting numerous of the above posts reducing the MOT test frequency to 2years is a bad idea. Not everyone has their car regularly serviced so an enforceable check and report on tyres, brakes, steering, lights, wipers etc is important for road safely.

IMO the government could cut taxation for every person not just each vehicle simply by more than £30 pa just by cutting wastage and increasing efficiency.

A full price MoT costs £54.85, which is a tiny proportion of the cost of operating a car. It's not a lot more than half a tank of diesel in mine at current prices. And if you book it with a service most garages give a fairly whacking discount. So yes, it is just headline grabbing.

 

[Enthusiast]

Can't help thinking that if they want to come to the UK badly enough and they think they'll be sent to Rwanda, they'll still pay the people smugglers but disappear into the black economy instead of claiming asylum.

The Navy is picking up just about every single boat, though, so it's hard to think how and where they'll get into the country.

Whether the Royal Navy is picking them up or not is immaterial. Once they've landed they cannot be detained and no restrictions can be placed upon their movements, so if they wish to disappear rather than formally claim asylum they will (and many do). All the RN is doing is helping them ashore. The only way to prevent an influx which is already unsustainable is to prevent the travellers landing here.

The Rwandan scheme will not work. M'Learned Friends are no doubt already booking their time out to argue against its legality in various forums and the chances of any arrivals being sent there are as close to zero as makes no odds. But we can no doubt rest assured that the reciprocal part of the arrangement, where the UK will take "some" refugees already in Rwanda - most of whom, it is said, will have complex medical and mental needs - will be met. Even if there were to be successes in sending asylum seekers there, the scheme currently has the capacity to deal with 100 people. Many times that number arrive every week provided the weather is good.

 

[The Ham]

Whether the Royal Navy is picking them up or not is immaterial. Once they've landed they cannot be detained and no restrictions can be placed upon their movements, so if they wish to disappear rather than formally claim asylum they will (and many do). All the RN is doing is helping them ashore. The only way to prevent an influx which is already unsustainable is to prevent the travellers landing here.

"Many do" disappear rather than claim asylum so you have a source for that claim, given that 98% of 35,000 claim asylum (so circa 700 don't claim asylum), as such quite a few but not really many in the greater scheme of things.

My source:

Most people who risk Channel boat crossings are refugees – report

Analysis contradicts Priti Patel’s claim that 70% are single men who are economic migrants to UK

www.theguardian.com

According to the Home Office, 98% of people coming across the Channel apply for asylum. The report sets out the likely outcome of their asylum claims based on what is known as the grant rate. It finds that the majority of people crossing the Channel are likely to be recognised as being in need of protection at the initial decision stage.

 

[brad465]

MPs are really doing a good job of trashing themselves this week. We've had the Tory MP(s) watching porn in the Commons, a Labour MP is being suspended for 2 days for bullying, and now Tory MP Jamie Wallis has been charged with failing to stop after an accident. The latter may have the most implications going forward, as if found guilty he may get a custodial sentence and cause a recall petition in a seat that was taken off Labour in 2019:

Jamie Wallis: Bridgend MP charged over car crash

Tory MP Jamie Wallis charged with failing to stop after a car crash in the Vale of Glamorgan.

www.bbc.co.uk

Conservative MP Jamie Wallis has been charged with failing to stop after a car crash last November.
South Wales Police said Mr Wallis, 37, from Cowbridge, Vale of Glamorgan, has also been charged with failing to report the crash, careless driving and leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position.
Police said the alleged incident happened in Llanblethian, near Cowbridge.
He will appear in court next month.
In March, Mr Wallis became the first MP to come out as trans.
He was elected to represent Bridgend at the 2019 general election, unseating Labour for the first time in three decades.
Prior to entering the Commons he studied chemistry at Oxford University, and was a director at data recovery firm Fields Associates.
In a statement, South Wales Police said it had been "been investigating a road traffic collision which happened in Llanblethian, Cowbridge, in the early hours of Sunday, November 28, 2021.
"Jamie Wallis, 37, from Cowbridge has been charged with failing to stop following a road traffic collision, failure to report a road traffic collision, driving without due care and attention and leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position."

 

[alex397]

Has anyone seen anything about the government aiming to take control of the Electoral Commission? I’ve seen plenty of Twitter about it, but not anything from a reliable source yet.
It appears to me another backwards step for democracy, but would like to see a detailed report on it from a source a lot more knowledgable about this than me.

EDIT: on further internet searching, I’ve found this from The London Economic.

While you weren’t looking, the Tories took over the Electoral Commission​

Peers have voted down amendments aimed at protecting the independence of the Electoral Commission, sparking fresh fears about the UK’s democratic process.

Boris Johnson’s government had been handed a damaging defeat in the House of Lords earlier this week, after peers voted against a plan which undermines the independence of the election watchdog.

The Electoral Commission itself has warned against the move, arguing that it would let ministers shape how electoral law applies to their own party and political opponents.

Labour frontbencher Baroness Hayman said the move “would allow political interference in the regulation of our elections… this simply cannot be allowed to happen”.

‘Dodging accountability’​

But after MPs overturned efforts to strip out controversial parts of the legislation, resistance to the plans also fell away in the House of Lords – which voted through the Elections Bill on Wednesday night.

Critics say that the unamended Elections Bill could now give ministers new and unchecked powers over the elections regulator, undermining free and fair elections in the UK.



Commenting on the vote, Naomi Smith – head of democracy campaign group Best for Britain – said: “Tonight was the last chance to protect the independence of the elections watchdog and with it free and fair elections in the U.K.

“Despite the enormous efforts of a cross party, cross organisational resistance to the government’s authoritarian power grab, tonight Johnson’s regime succeeded in its latest pursuit to dodge accountability.

“There is now an urgent need to remove this government and undo the damage they have wrought on our institutions and public trust in politics. Opposition parties must work together to make this a reality.”

‘Unacceptable’​

Lord Blunkett, the former Labour home secretary, was among the key figures behind the Lords push to neuter the bill. Before the vote, he told the Observer that it represented a key moment in the defence of democracy.

“A free and fair election is the touchstone of any functioning democracy, which is why we [Labour] introduced the Electoral Commission despite having a large majority and the political ability to give Labour an advantage in future elections,” he said.

“Revoking that independence would set a dangerous precedent for current and future elections, and would give an unacceptable signal to the rest of the world.”

In an unusual move in February, the commission wrote a public letter to Michael Gove – the minister with responsibility for elections – saying the bill’s provisions were “inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy”.

It added: “This independence is fundamental to maintaining confidence and legitimacy in our electoral system.”

Polling undertaken by Best for Britain earlier this month revealed that 70 per cent of Brits believe the Electoral Commission should be fully independent of the government.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which of the icebergs over the horizon will be the one to sink PM Johnson?

The SS Boris amazingly is still afloat.

 

[Busaholic]

Has anyone seen anything about the government aiming to take control of the Electoral Commission? I’ve seen plenty of Twitter about it, but not anything from a reliable source yet.
It appears to me another backwards step for democracy, but would like to see a detailed report on it from a source a lot more knowledgable about this than me.

EDIT: on further internet searching, I’ve found this from The London Economic.

I only read physical, print editions of newspapers (the Times and the i every day) and there's been plenty in both about it i.e. on more than one day. If you're still having trouble, I'll attempt to retrieve them.

 

[brad465]

The SS Boris amazingly is still afloat.

That's because no clear alternative within the party who is seen to have the potential to win elections exists. Were that the case he'd be long gone.

 

[Busaholic]

The SS Boris amazingly is still afloat.

Bluster and a sense of entitlement seemingly get you everywhere.

 

[Shrop]

oh come on.

for literally decades, successive Governments have progressively enacted stricter road safety measures* such that deaths on the roads have fallen from around 6000 in 1980 to 1752 in 2019. And in that time vehicle miles travelled have more than doubled. That is an 85% reduction in road fatalities per vehicle mile in 4 decades.

*such as
front seat belts
fog lights
rear seat belts
child seats / booster seats
airbags
ABS
eye level rear lights
improved crash resistance
Pedestrian protection crumple zones
ASR / ESP
improved tyre standards

and

improved highway design standards
encouraged pedestrianisation of city centres
enabled traffic calming in residential areas
speed cameras (and the clear effect that has had on speeding)
more stringent driving tests
changes to the Highway Code specifically for safety reasons.

and so on.
or perhaps you think all these happened by accident (if you’ll pardon the pun).


I am not saying 1,700 deaths on the roads a year is acceptable. It clearly isn’t. And without going in to detail I have personal reasons why I wish there were fewer. However it is inarguably that 1700 deaths a year is better than 6000.

Therefore to say that Governments have little interest in saving lives on the roads is patently not true given their record over the past 4 decades (and more), and backed up by the results.

Only just seen this - I don't get your scepticism about my comment. You've listed the easy things that have been done, but please tell me why driving isn't regularly re-tested, like other far less dangerous qualifications are. And why other car safety measures which could easily be introduced with existing technology, such as not following too close, aren't made mandatory. I look forward to your comments.

 

[Bald Rick]

Only just seen this - I don't get your scepticism about my comment. You've listed the easy things that have been done, but please tell me why driving isn't regularly re-tested, like other far less dangerous qualifications are. And why other car safety measures which could easily be introduced with existing technology, such as not following too close, aren't made mandatory. I look forward to your comments.

my scepticism about your comment was your words:
“For literally decades successive Governments have shown little interest in saving the lives of road users.”

The actions of successive Governments over the past decades, and the resulting significant reduction in road traffic fatalities, show that is not true. Whilst they might seem easy to you, with the benefit of hindsight, I’m sure they weren’t easy fir the engineers and politicians involved.

What is, or isn’t, happening currently in this area is a different subject, for which you might like to start a separate discussion.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Only just seen this - I don't get your scepticism about my comment. You've listed the easy things that have been done,

The point is that you claimed that Governments have not been interested in saving the lives of road users. @Bald Rick listed lots of things that successive Governments have done whose primary purpose was precisely to save the lives of road users. If your statement was true and Governments really weren't interested in saving the lives of road users, then it's pretty unlikely that they would have done even a fraction of those things - especially bearing in mind that some of those changes designed to save people's lives were quite unpopular with various groups at the time they were brought in.

 

[The Ham]

Only just seen this - I don't get your scepticism about my comment. You've listed the easy things that have been done, but please tell me why driving isn't regularly re-tested, like other far less dangerous qualifications are. And why other car safety measures which could easily be introduced with existing technology, such as not following too close, aren't made mandatory. I look forward to your comments.

The short answer is that they wouldn't be popular and would likely result in lost votes.

It's likely that retesting would be good, however it's likely that one of the reasons that it's not been brought in is that there wouldn't be enough people to do the retesting to make it work. See the delays caused when those needing to take tests couldn't due to Covid for a bit.

Even retesting every 10 years would require (assuming that new drivers take an average of 2 tests for every 1 by everyone retesting) 3 times the number of testers that we have now, every 5 years and it's 5 times as many.

Probably the simplest first step would be a theory test every (say) 10 years, with a failure of that resulting in a retest. Maybe with a hazard perception test and mandatory eye tests being other options to retain your driving licence.

Also with the ability for certain people (such as the courts, doctors or police) being able to request a retest is undertake to retain a licence in specific circumstances (for instance doctors if they have health concerns, the courts to regain a license after a ban, the police as well as points for certain breaches of road rules).

As for technology being mandated, using your example of not being able to follow too close, chances are it would take a decade before sufficient numbers of vehicles had it installed and there's a belief that in that timeframe autonomous vehicles are likely to be here and so probably not worth doing (of course there's a fair chance that won't be the case and so it should be done, however that's why there should be more debate on such matters).

Of course the other thing is that "let market forces decide", so people can get discounts if they have a black box fitted, people can protect themselves from being found at fault by having dashcams fitted (although interestingly I'm not aware of car manufacturers offering these pre-installed - although just Googling it does show that there are some, mostly high end cars).

In early 2010 when Labour were last in power the range of technology available was far less limited than it is now and (again) only really on the fairly high end cars, so mandating that it was required on everything wouldn't have made much difference.

However there are new EU requirements for new cars, starting this year, be fitted with speed limiters and it's likely that other measures will follow. Such a change could have come a little sooner, however probably not but so that much.

 

[Shrop]

my scepticism about your comment was your words:
“For literally decades successive Governments have shown little interest in saving the lives of road users.”

The actions of successive Governments over the past decades, and the resulting significant reduction in road traffic fatalities, show that is not true. Whilst they might seem easy to you, with the benefit of hindsight, I’m sure they weren’t easy fir the engineers and politicians involved.

What is, or isn’t, happening currently in this area is a different subject, for which you might like to start a separate discussion.

Well I do agree that a separate discussion may be more appropriate than labouring the point on this thread. It could be interesting, and hopefully constructive, although I'm not sure if many would join the thread, not least for the same reason that ministers fail to address the more meaningful points, ie in case their own driving is questioned. Always happy to discuss this one!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2022 ==

The short answer is that they wouldn't be popular and would likely result in lost votes.

It's likely that retesting would be good, however it's likely that one of the reasons that it's not been brought in is that there wouldn't be enough people to do the retesting to make it work. See the delays caused when those needing to take tests couldn't due to Covid for a bit.

Even retesting every 10 years would require (assuming that new drivers take an average of 2 tests for every 1 by everyone retesting) 3 times the number of testers that we have now, every 5 years and it's 5 times as many.

Probably the simplest first step would be a theory test every (say) 10 years, with a failure of that resulting in a retest. Maybe with a hazard perception test and mandatory eye tests being other options to retain your driving licence.

Also with the ability for certain people (such as the courts, doctors or police) being able to request a retest is undertake to retain a licence in specific circumstances (for instance doctors if they have health concerns, the courts to regain a license after a ban, the police as well as points for certain breaches of road rules).

As for technology being mandated, using your example of not being able to follow too close, chances are it would take a decade before sufficient numbers of vehicles had it installed and there's a belief that in that timeframe autonomous vehicles are likely to be here and so probably not worth doing (of course there's a fair chance that won't be the case and so it should be done, however that's why there should be more debate on such matters).

Of course the other thing is that "let market forces decide", so people can get discounts if they have a black box fitted, people can protect themselves from being found at fault by having dashcams fitted (although interestingly I'm not aware of car manufacturers offering these pre-installed - although just Googling it does show that there are some, mostly high end cars).

In early 2010 when Labour were last in power the range of technology available was far less limited than it is now and (again) only really on the fairly high end cars, so mandating that it was required on everything wouldn't have made much difference.

However there are new EU requirements for new cars, starting this year, be fitted with speed limiters and it's likely that other measures will follow. Such a change could have come a little sooner, however probably not but so that much.

Thanks for the comments. I'd be happy to address them all, but I'm aware that it's somewhat tangential to this thread.
For now I'd just say that when so much effort has gone into pushing for driverless cars, the technology for not following too close (a dangerous habit practised by the vast majority of drivers most of the time), is relatively straightforward.
As for repeat driving tests, why make any excuses for not doing it, when poor standards kill and injure so many people every year? I could say more, but maybe on another thread if anyone wants to start one. I'd start one myself, but I don't think that many would be interested.

 

[jfollows]

Neil Parish, Conservative MP for Tiverton & Honiton, has had the whip removed while he is investigated for allegedly watching pornography in the Commons.
The last days of Rome? asked someone in The Guardian today https://www.theguardian.com/comment...vernment-ministers-sexual-misconduct-cronyism.

How long were the last days of Rome? By some estimates, about 200 years, so I hope you’re sitting comfortably after a week in which: a female MP was baselessly branded an exhibitionist; a male MP was accused of watching porn in the Commons chamber; it was reiterated that 56 MPs are reportedly under investigation for sexual misconduct (three of them in the cabinet); and an MP recently convicted of child sexual assault was revealed to have put in a forward-dated resignation letter, ensuring he’ll collect his full April salary. Meanwhile, the prime minister remains under police investigation over a number of allegations that he broke his own laws to attend parties. Rome-wise, we could have another few thousand weeks of this. Don’t worry – it’ll feel longer.

 

[Gloster]

I also think that the way that some of the newspapers, lead by Mail (Don’t they know there’s a war on) are starting to hurl accusations at Labour suggests that they have been given a tip-off that there may be a sudden election. The election doesn’t have to be for a couple of years, but if the Conservatives think that ‘Things can only get worse’, they might try and catch the other parties unprepared.

 

[brad465]

I also think that the way that some of the newspapers, lead by Mail (Don’t they know there’s a war on) are starting to hurl accusations at Labour suggests that they have been given a tip-off that there may be a sudden election. The election doesn’t have to be for a couple of years, but if the Conservatives think that ‘Things can only get worse’, they might try and catch the other parties unprepared.

Either that or this is a local election tactic, which is next week. Also there may come a point where bombarding readers with a particular narrative in this way could become counterproductive to the cause, something that was believed to have happened in 2017. It also highlights that, for all his apparent dullness, Starmer doesn't actually have much in the way of dirt on him. If he did then papers like the Mail wouldn't have to milk one story for all its worth (this story was first reported by The Sun not long after the photo was taken, then earlier this year before the Police cleared it, and now they're trying to get the Police to look again).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2022 ==

If you stay on his Wiki page and refresh every few minutes you'll get a new amusing edit, here's the latest:

Neil Parish - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I also think that the way that some of the newspapers, lead by Mail (Don’t they know there’s a war on) are starting to hurl accusations at Labour suggests that they have been given a tip-off that there may be a sudden election. The election doesn’t have to be for a couple of years, but if the Conservatives think that ‘Things can only get worse’, they might try and catch the other parties unprepared.

I just checked the DailyMail website. their lead stories right now are about the Tory MP Neil Parish having allegedly watched Porn in the Commons and separately about Boris Becker being sent to prison for bankruptcy fraud. On a quick scan, I don't see anything remotely prominent on their website specifically attacking Labour.

The physical paper on the other hand is leading about Labour's alleged hypocrisy in attacking Downing Street lockdown parties when it appears that Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner may have attended a social gathering during lockdown. If it's true, that doesn't seem an unreasonable thing to attack Labour for given the huge fuss Labour have been making about lockdown parties. I don't think you need to invent conspiracy theories connecting it to a hypothetical election.

 

[nlogax]

The physical paper on the other hand is leading about Labour's alleged hypocrisy in attacking Downing Street lockdown parties when it appears that Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner may have attended a social gathering during lockdown.

No. The UK was not in lockdown when this Labour social gathering took place (Sept 2nd 2020). The Institute for Government maintains a very clear timeline of when we were in and out of lockdown. Meanwhile, the Mail's headline from that very same day.



Another reminder that the Mail is a dire, dreck-filled media outlet feeding on the short term memories and misdirected anger of much of its readership.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No. The UK was not in lockdown when this Labour social gathering took place (Sept 2nd 2020). The Institute for Government maintains a very clear timeline of when we were in and out of lockdown. Meanwhile, the Mail's headline from that very same day.

I'm not sure what gathering you're referring to, but the one that some newspapers are reporting was on 30 April 2021, not 2 September.

 

[JamesT]

No. The UK was not in lockdown when this Labour social gathering took place (Sept 2nd 2020). The Institute for Government maintains a very clear timeline of when we were in and out of lockdown. Meanwhile, the Mail's headline from that very same day.

View attachment 113799

Another reminder that the Mail is a dire, dreck-filled media outlet feeding on the short term memories and misdirected anger of much of its readership.

According to the BBC, the event in question was in April 2021 not September 2020 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61271050

The rules on indoor gatherings were the same in June 2020, when Boris Johnson attended a gathering for his birthday, for which he was fined.

 

[nlogax]

I'm not sure what gathering you're referring to, but the one that some newspapers are reporting was on 30 April 2021, not 2 September.

Labour's lies: Angela Rayner WAS at Keir Starmer's 'beergate' event

Labour acknowledged that Angela Rayner was also at the event on April 30 last year at which Sir Keir was filmed enjoying a beer with officials at a time when indoor socialising was banned.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Labour's lies: Angela Rayner WAS at Keir Starmer's 'beergate' event

Labour acknowledged that Angela Rayner was also at the event on April 30 last year at which Sir Keir was filmed enjoying a beer with officials at a time when indoor socialising was banned.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Nope, still April. The event that is getting most prominence in the media was on 30 April last year, when we were in lockdown. Keir Starmer was photographed drinking beer at an event with Labour activists. Labour initially denied that Angela Rayner was present, but it's now turned out that she was. Separately, questions are being asked about a different alleged event on 2 September when Keir was eating cakes - at a time when we weren't in legal lockdown but there was guidance against indoor socialising. The article you cite refers to both events.

 

[brad465]

Here's what Adam Wagner thinks about the whole situation resurfacing:

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1519605424479248386

There is a difference in law between a pre-arranged social event (birthday party) and a meal whilst campaigning when there is nowhere else to get food. There is no prospect of showing a pre-arranged birthday party is reasonably necessary for work - it is a purely social event

In the same way that if colleagues ate together in a canteen a lunchtime during the working day, that would be "reasonably necessary for work", although there was some guidance about not encouraging mixing between people not working together.

The problem with the gatherings at Downing Street is each of them was a pre-arranged social gathering with no work purpose. Leaving parties, Christmas parties, bring your own booze parties, birthday party. Like a list of the kind of events you clearly couldn't have at the time.

The Sun reports that the Labour event was on the same day that a notice had gone out for a pre-arranged "quiz and social". Labour say it's not the same event and happened online - but if they are the same event that would likely have been illegal.

This is what Starmer said about the gathering - they were campaigning, that there was nowhere else to get food at the time, and“if you didn’t get a takeaway then our team wasn’t eating that evening”. That is a different scenario to purely social gatherings

I seriously doubt a magistrate would conclude - assuming Starmer is telling the truth - that they were "sure" the gathering was not reasonably necessary for work. But even if I'm wrong (and I appreciate people will see this through a political lens) it makes no difference...

... to my analysis of the Downing St gatherings, which appears to be shared by the Metropolitan Police, that they were not permitted.

Put another way - if Keir Starmer did break the law (which I very much doubt) that doesn't change the law, which the PM appears to have broken multiple times. It's not a race to the bottom, each event is taken on its merits. It may change the politics but that's a different point

 

[nw1]

Either that or this is a local election tactic, which is next week. Also there may come a point where bombarding readers with a particular narrative in this way could become counterproductive to the cause, something that was believed to have happened in 2017. It also highlights that, for all his apparent dullness, Starmer doesn't actually have much in the way of dirt on him. If he did then papers like the Mail wouldn't have to milk one story for all its worth (this story was first reported by The Sun not long after the photo was taken, then earlier this year before the Police cleared it, and now they're trying to get the Police to look again).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2022 ==

If you stay on his Wiki page and refresh every few minutes you'll get a new amusing edit, here's the latest:

Neil Parish - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 113790

Why people vote for sanctimonious hypocrites like Parish is anyone's guess. According to Wikipedia, but sourced from the Mid Devon Gazette (so not a malicious edit), he appears to have an attitude against gay marriage on apparently religious grounds, yet the dirty little creep allegedly watches porn.

A truly disgusting individual, yet sadly many people in many constituencies just seem to vote Tory automatically like mindless sheep no matter how bad the candidate is.

The "moral majority". "We hate gay marriage, but heterosexual porn is perfectly acceptable".

 

[brad465]

Why people vote for sanctimonious hypocrites like Parish is anyone's guess. According to Wikipedia, but sourced from the Mid Devon Gazette (so not a malicious edit), he appears to have an attitude against gay marriage on apparently religious grounds, yet the dirty little creep allegedly watches porn.

A truly disgusting individual, yet sadly many people in many constituencies just seem to vote Tory automatically like mindless sheep no matter how bad the candidate is.

He now appears to be trying the same tricks as partygate, starting with "he may have watched porn by mistake":

MP Neil Parish says he may have opened porn in Commons by mistake

Neil Parish refuses to resign as an MP until the investigation into the allegations concludes.

www.bbc.co.uk

An MP under investigation for allegedly watching pornography in the House of Commons has claimed he may have opened it on his phone by mistake.
An inquiry has been launched after Neil Parish referred himself for investigation.
He has refused to resign as an MP or as head of the environment select committee until the inquiry concludes.
Two female colleagues complained after claiming to have seen him looking at adult content while sitting near them.
Mr Parish has been suspended from the Conservative parliamentary party, pending the outcome of the investigation by Parliament's standards commissioner Kathryn Stone.
If she finds that he has violated the code of conduct for MPs, possible punishments range from apologising to the Commons to suspension or expulsion.
Questioned by the BBC on Friday, Mr Parish said he would co-operate fully with the inquiry and would await the outcome before commenting.
"Of course it's embarrassing," he said. "And it's embarrassing for my wife and family, and so that's my main concern at the moment. I have a very supportive wife and I thank her for that."
Asked if it was a mistake, he said: "I will await the findings of the inquiry."
Pressed on whether he had opened something on his phone in error, Mr Parish said: "I did, but let the inquiry look at that."
Mr Parish also said he would resign if "found guilty" by the inquiry, saying he understood the upset he might have caused and "I apologise for that".
However, in a statement on his website, he said he would continue working as an MP and committee chair, despite calls from female colleagues for him resign or at least to stop attending Parliament while under investigation.

On Wednesday, it emerged that a female minister had reported a male colleague for viewing pornographic material while sitting beside her in the Commons chamber. The female minister said she had also seen the MP watching pornography during a hearing of a select committee, The Times reported.
A second female Tory MP said she had tried but been unable to capture video proof of him doing so.
The allegations were subsequently revealed to have been made about Mr Parish, who said he had referred himself for investigation.
Mr Parish serves as the MP for Tiverton and Honiton in Devon and also chairs the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee - but the investigation does not prevent him from continuing in either role.

What this is a reminder of is the problem isn't entirely the incident that happened, but the lies and covering up tactics used by those responsible. If Johnson and Sunak had been outright honest from the start on partygate, it would have blown over a lot more quickly, whether they resigned or not. Now Neil Parish seems to be doing the same.

Another headline that isn't helping the Tories today is Sunak breaking a pledge on Council Tax rebates in some areas, due to a guidance change:

Confusion over £150 council tax rebate timing

Some people may have had to wait longer than they believed they would for a £150 energy bills rebate.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Chancellor's pledge that councils in England would make a £150 payment towards domestic energy bills "in April" has been broken in some areas.
While some have paid, Radio 4's Money Box has found many have not and the guidance has changed to "from April".
The deadline for payment, which applies to homes in council tax bands A-D, is September.
The government said councils were expected to begin making payments as soon as possible from April.
"Many councils have already started paying the rebate and we expect the rest to begin payments shortly," the Levelling Up department told the BBC in a statement.
"The £150 council tax rebate will help millions of people deal with rising living costs, and we have provided an additional £144 million to councils to provide support to any household in need, regardless of council tax band," it added.
The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which is responsible for the roll-out, did not answer a direct question about why the guidance had been changed or when that change happened.
The Local Government Association, which represents councils, says they are working hard to process the payment and that required fraud checks and new software have caused delays.
Households can check their local council's website for more information.

In Wales and Scotland it is up to councils to decide how they pay this money out. In both countries the scheme also extends to people in council tax bands E to H if they get a reduction in the council tax due to low income.
In Scotland councils have been told they can give the £150 as a direct discount off their council tax - and many have done that.
There is no council tax in Northern Ireland but the executive there has been given money to make the payments but that is held up by the political uncertainty.

Energy bills are currently at record highs with a typical household likely to pay around an extra £700 per year since prices went up on 1 April.
Prices jumped by an average of 54% after the regulator, Ofgem, increased the price cap which limits how much energy companies can charge domestic customers.
Even then many households, like those in flats or who share communal heating networks, for example, are not protected by the price cap and so are facing even higher rises.

 

[nw1]

Nope, still April. The event that is getting most prominence in the media was on 30 April last year, when we were in lockdown. Keir Starmer was photographed drinking beer at an event with Labour activists. Labour initially denied that Angela Rayner was present, but it's now turned out that she was. Separately, questions are being asked about a different alleged event on 2 September when Keir was eating cakes - at a time when we weren't in legal lockdown but there was guidance against indoor socialising. The article you cite refers to both events.

It isn't good if Keir Starmer also broke lockdown laws. However, as the party of government, and the party that actually implemented the long and severe lockdowns which have caused lasting economic damage for us all, and mental health issues for many, I would argue that the Tories have a special responsibility above all others to observe their own laws - no more so than figureheads Johnson and Sunak.

Also targeting Angela Rayner specifically seems particularly nasty, almost as if to try and trivialise the recent incident. Why focus on her, and not other Labour MPs who might have been present?

I will say that it was a political mistake for Labour to take a pro-restriction line though. For one thing it puts them in an awkward position, for another thing I suspect it put off more voters than it attracted.