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

[Busaholic]

What statements have Labour made about this which turned out not to be true?

Now bearing in mind that the police have completed their investigation (presumably with the video evidence which kicked the story off) and found that there was no law breaking and the current news stories relates to the fact that an MP has put in a FOI request to the police (if there's new evidence, that's a different matter, but I've but seen reference to any so if you have feel free to share) then it's unlikely there's going to be a change in the outcome.

If we're talking about Durham police re-opening possible covid breach transgressions the Cummings fairy tales surrounding Barnard Castle should be top of the list.

 

[jfollows]

If we're talking about Durham police re-opening possible covid breach transgressions the Cummings fairy tales surrounding Barnard Castle should be top of the list.

Too late: you may have seen the attached article (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-dominic-cummings-nazir-afzal-critical-police) in which Nazir Afzal essentially says that if the police had taken Dominic Cummings' actions seriously at the time then perhaps the "Partygate" things might not have happened. That's to say, it was treated by many people as a joke at the time, despite the fact that many of us were incensed by the appalling behaviour we were also incensed by the lack of interest by the police in the affair which continued through the parties in Downing Street. The police has a large amount of blame in all this in my opinion.

Dominic Cummings

Proper investigation of Cummings ‘might have prevented’ Partygate

Former prosecutor for north-west England, Nazir Afzal, critical of police handling of alleged Covid rule breaches

Matthew Weaver

Mon 2 May 2022 13.00 BST

Partygate could have been avoided if the police had properly investigated alleged lockdown breaches by Dominic Cummings, a former regional chief prosecutor has claimed.

Nazir Afzal, the crown prosecutor for north-west England until 2015, also expressed exasperation at fresh revelations about the way Durham police looked into Cummings’ journeys to Durham and Barnard Castle after they were exposed by the Guardian and the Mirror in May 2020.

Last month Durham’s chief constable, Jo Farrell, admitted that her officers did not interview Cummings as part of their three-day investigation into the lockdown movements of Boris Johnson’s then chief adviser.

She told the Mirror that the force treated Cummings’s televised press conference in Downing Street’s rose garden as a witness statement about his behaviour instead.

In May 2021, Cummings admitted to MPs that he did not tell the whole truth in the rose garden. “I should probably explain some things about this that were not put into the public domain at the time in the rose garden,” he told a joint session of two select committees.

Speaking to the Guardian, Afzal said: “The police relied on an account which the suspect himself has deviated from subsequently. That in itself makes it likely that the police investigation was flawed.”

Afzal’s lawyers, Hodge Jones & Allen, have written to the Metropolitan police and Durham constabulary urging them to share any “lessons learned” about their handling of Cummings’ behaviour in the light of the more thorough investigation that officers eventually conducted into Partygate.

And they asked whether the Met still stood by its decision not to investigate Cummings leaving London for Durham when he had suspected Covid.

Afzal said: “Had the police promptly and robustly investigated those responsible for setting the rules, but seemingly breaching the rules, Partygate might not have happened.

“In relation to Dominic Cummings, then a central player within Downing Street, Durham police could and should have done so at the time of the breaches and when presented with the evidence and complaints.

“Such action would have reinforced the message to the prime minister and those around him, that the Covid regulations, which they created and encouraged others to follow, should be observed, both in spirit and by the letter.”

After a three-day investigation in May 2020, Durham police concluded that Cummings’ infamous journey to Barnard Castle probably amounted to a “minor” breach of the rules.

But the force took no further action and made no finding on Cummings’ decision to leave London because the investigation was confined to County Durham. It also said there was insufficient evidence that Cummings made a second trip to Durham on 19 April 2020 despite taking statements from nurse practitioner Clare Edwards and her husband, Dave, claiming they had seen him in Durham that day.

In February 2021 Durham police rejected a 225-page dossier submitted by Afzal’s lawyers alleging that Cummings had breached the Covid rules multiple times.

It also alleged that Cummings perverted the course of justice in his account of his journey to Barnard Castle on 12 April and his denial of a claim that he made a second lockdown trip to Durham around 19 April.

Last May, Cummings again insisted to MPs that it was “false” to claim he made a second trip to Durham. But he appeared to concede they did leave London a second time because of security concerns: “It is true that I moved my family out again.”

Asked at the time to explain how four people claimed to have seen him in and around Durham’s Houghall Woods on the morning of 19 April, Cummings told the Guardian: “I did not go back to Durham on [the] 19th. I was in London on [the] 19th and with my son on Hampstead Heath, and phone data proves it.”

The Guardian has seen a photograph taken at 3.31pm that day appearing to show Cummings on Hampstead Heath with his family. It also established that it was possible to drive from Durham to London in under four hours during lockdown.

Explaining Durham’s decision not to interview Cummings, Farrell told the Mirror: “I remember thinking, as he talked, that it would be the account of the circumstances.

“From a proportionality point of view, there was an extensive and well-documented narrative about what he had done and where he had been. We used that and information about the decision-making around it.”

The Met told Afzal’s lawyers that it held no information on lessons learned from the Cummings case and referred the issue to Durham police. Durham police have yet to respond, but Farrell told the Mirror she was “confident and satisfied the decisions we took then will stand the test of time”.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What statements have Labour made about this which turned out not to be true?

They claimed that Angela Rayner was not there - it turned out she was.

 

[The Ham]

They claimed that Angela Rayner was not there - it turned out she was.

Thank you.

 

[brad465]

Are you sure you're not pushing double standards here? The impression I'm getting from much of this thread is something like:

Evidence emerges that Boris Johnson broke lockdown restrictions, and it subsequently emerges that Boris made statements that about it that were not true: Everyone jumps on it and shouts about how this proves how evil and corrupt the Tories are.

Similar evidence emerges that Keir Starmer broke lockdown restrictions, and it subsequently emerges that Labour made statements about it that were not true: Everyone jumps on the messenger and shouts about how the messenger shouldn't be pushing the story.

Now I appreciate the Downing Street parties appear to represent a much more serious breach in terms of numbers of people/events, but even so you can't have one rule for the Tories and a different rule for Labour. Personally I think the Daily Mail are over-egging this story a bit, but no more so than the stories about Partygate have been over-egged by people/media on the left.

In terms of the photo: The Daily Mail article does make it clear that it's a stock photo. I'm inclined to agree with you that they possibly shouldn't have chosen that particular photo. But then, how many stories about Downing Street parties have been accompanied by stock photos of Tory politicians that were taken at completely different times, with no-one raising any objection? It's a fairly standard thing that if you're running a story about someone, you might use a stock photo of that person if you can't get hold of a good photo taken from whatever event you're reporting. The Daily Mail have published only the portion of the photo that shows Keir Starmer eating, so it's not like his reputation is likely to be damaged in any way by it.

We're all guilty of contradicting ourselves occasionally; my point here is not so much that the story is being reported, it's more about using factual content, which the photo in question is not. I would argue that stock photos that could be perceived as evidence, but is not, shouldn't be used where alleged criminal activity is being reported, regardless of who is being accused and what for. On almost any other type of article/event then fair enough.

At least we agree about the Mail over egging this story, and yes Rayner's status at the party changing really hasn't helped Labour, even if it turns out not to have breached anything, given this creates a perception of trying to cover it up; those implicated in Partygate are getting at least as much stick for lying/covering up their behaviour than they are for the actual behaviour, even if relatively trivial. At least in a way, as others have pointed out, Neil Parish admitted to wrongdoing and resigned before an investigation (one was planned) was needed to find out, which can't be said for many of those who were implicated in Partygate.

 

[Kite159]

They claimed that Angela Rayner was not there - it turned out she was.

Isn't the rumours that the Durham police & crime commissioner also was in attendance?

No wonder why the police were so quick to say "nothing was wrong" when one of their own was there.

But if they were lying about Rayner being there, what else are they trying to cover up?

 

[david1212]

... We could always have a re-run of the 2016 leadership election where May won by default as the others withdrew before it got to the wider membership.

Gove was fundamental to that by initially backing Johnson then sabotaging him to run himself. Against forum rules to post my name for Gove. I now trust nothing Gove says or does. Admittedly had Johnson become PM we would just have been sooner been in a similar mess but that is a different issue.

Every Tory leader makes his/her predecessor look not so bad. I despised May for bribing the DUP in order to form a government after her disastrous miscalculation in 2017. But Johnson has been even worse, and I despise him even more for his whipping the Tory MPs into voting for a new law specifically aimed at letting the creep Owen Patterson escape punishment for his corrupt conduct. A few Tory MPs had enough moral compass to refuse to support that, but nearly all of them put their career before honour.

Whenever Johnson farts, nearly all Tory MPs say, "ooh, what a fragrant smell". Contemptible.

Far too many anyway. The problem as highlighted in numerous of the recent posts is who to replace him and then select a cabinet with a better attitude. Of the few options Hunt perhaps the best for PM but then who in the cabinet ?

 

[The Ham]

Far too many anyway. The problem as highlighted in numerous of the recent posts is who to replace him and then select a cabinet with a better attitude. Of the few options Hunt perhaps the best for PM but then who in the cabinet ?

Whoever gets in probably will have enough loyal people to fill in the gaps. Given that there's nothing stopping someone with little past knowledge being a reasonable minister there's likely to be enough back benchers to fill in a few roles and then do a half decent job.

 

[DanNCL]

What a car crash of an interview for Boris on Good Morning Britain with Susanna Reid this morning. All he had to say to a question about a 77 year old lady who spends most of her time riding around on London buses to keep warm because she can't afford to have the heating on at home was that he introduced the Freedom Pass (a lie as the Freedom Pass has existed since the 1970s), and then at the end of the interview when Susanna Reid finishes off with "Prime Minister, it's good to talk to you, Lorraine is waiting to take up all the issues that you have brought up in this interview", he replies with "who's Lorraine?", turns out he doesn't even know who Lorraine Kelly is!

 

[jfollows]

John Crace finished his article today (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/03/boris-johnson-gmb-interview-survival) with

“Lorraine’s waiting,” she said.

“Lorraine who?” asked Johnson. For once, this wasn’t an act. He genuinely had no idea who Lorraine Kelly was. It was almost as if he suspected that ITV might have rustled up yet another lover with a paternity suit. The Convict’s days as the self-styled man of the people are long gone. And it will be well more than five years before he agrees to another GMB interview. Where was a fridge when you needed one?

PS He refers to Boris as "The Convict"; he was "The Suspect" until he got officially found out.

 

[Typhoon]

John Crace finished his article today (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/03/boris-johnson-gmb-interview-survival) with

PS He refers to Boris as "The Convict"; he was "The Suspect" until he got officially found out.

Looks like he's just left with This Morning (provided it's with Philip and Holly, otherwise he might get confused). He didn't have the common sense to smile at the camera, nod gently and keep his mouth shut. Still there will be lots of people who will still support him.

 

[Bayum]

“I don’t want Elsie to go without heating or food or anything… BUT REMEMBER, I INTRODUCED THE FREEDOM PASS THAT ENABLES HER TO STAY WARM RIDING BUSES ALL DAY”

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2022 ==

My hope is the car crash interview this morning shows that BJ knows he’s on his way out and just doesn’t care anymore. A guy can dream, eh?

 

[Gloster]

“I don’t want Elsie to go without heating or food or anything… BUT REMEMBER, I INTRODUCED THE FREEDOM PASS THAT ENABLES HER TO STAY WARM RIDING BUSES ALL DAY”

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2022 ==

Which he didn’t do. He did make the pass valid all of the twenty-four hours (except on a few train services), but since June 2020 it is no longer valid 04.30-09.00 as a result of the bail-out provided by guess-who’s government. (Source: fullfact.org).

And yes, it was an astonishingly crass statement. One wonders if he has got to the state that he is so far distanced from reality that he thinks he can say or do anything and it will be accepted.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which he didn’t do. He did make the pass valid all of the twenty-four hours (except on a few train services), but since June 2020 it is no longer valid 04.30-09.00 as a result of the bail-out provided by guess-who’s government. (Source: fullfact.org).

And yes, it was an astonishingly crass statement. One wonders if he has got to the state that he is so far distanced from reality that he thinks he can say or do anything and it will be accepted.

I just watched the interview. It definitely wasn't exactly his finest tv moment.

More generally, it struck how much he looks like he's aged in the last couple of years. He also didn't look at all happy in much of the interview - and even looked somewhat annoyed at times - especially at the beginning when he was being asked about Partygate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2022 ==

One other random thing that came out of the interview. At one point he said that 86 000 visas have now been given to Ukrainians with 27 000 now having arrived in the UK. I just googled, and it seems that is what the Government are officially saying. If that's true, then it would suggest the widely reported problems from a month or so ago with getting visas to Ukrainians are now starting to get sorted.

 

[The Ham]

I just watched the interview. It definitely wasn't exactly his finest tv moment.

More generally, it struck how much he looks like he's aged in the last couple of years. He also didn't look at all happy in much of the interview - and even looked somewhat annoyed at times - especially at the beginning when he was being asked about Partygate.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2022 ==

One other random thing that came out of the interview. At one point he said that 86 000 visas have now been given to Ukrainians with 27 000 now having arrived in the UK. I just googled, and it seems that is what the Government are officially saying. If that's true, then it would suggest the widely reported problems from a month or so ago with getting visas to Ukrainians are now starting to get sorted.

27,000 is still rather pitiful compared with what some other countries are doing.

Now clearly it would be unfair to compare a neighbouring country, so how about Cyprus (population of 1.2 million) 10,000 having arrived, Denmark (population 5.8 million) 30,000 having arrived, France (population comparable to ours) over 50,000 having arrived, Iceland (population 366,000) 750 having arrived (that's 2 per 1,000 of population, of we'd reached that number we'd be talking about 135,000 having arrived, yet we've not even had that many apply), and almost wherever you look we are being put to shame by other countries and the numbers that they are taking in.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Has anyone done any number crunching on the story of Elsie. It just struck me, the story is her energy costs have risen from £17 to £85 a month. That's an exactly 5x increase. How is that possible? Gas and electricity bills have risen quite a bit, but I'm pretty sure no household gas/electricity supplier has increased its prices by 400%! The only explanation I can think of off the top of my head is if she had been under-paying on her direct debit for quite a while and therefore owed her supplier quite a bit of money, and her supplier has increased a direct debit to make that up. That explanation also fits with that £17 a month seems an unrealistically low amount to pay for gas/electricity, even before the last year's price rises.

Obviously, anyone with any compassion is going to feel for someone in that plight of riding buses because they can't afford heating and I don't want to take away from the Boris's answer in that interview was totally crass. But if the explanation is what I'm speculating (and I can't think of anything else it could be), then I'm not sure it's Government's responsibility to sort that case out.

 

[AM9]

Has anyone done any number crunching on the story of Elsie. It just struck me, the story is her energy costs have risen from £17 to £85 a month. That's an exactly 5x increase. How is that possible? Gas and electricity bills have risen quite a bit, but I'm pretty sure no household gas/electricity supplier has increased its prices by 400%! The only explanation I can think of off the top of my head is if she had been under-paying on her direct debit for quite a while and therefore owed her supplier quite a bit of money, and her supplier has increased a direct debit to make that up. That explanation also fits with that £17 a month seems an unrealistically low amount to pay for gas/electricity, even before the last year's price rises.

Obviously, anyone with any compassion is going to feel for someone in that plight of riding buses because they can't afford heating and I don't want to take away from the Boris's answer in that interview was totally crass. But if the explanation is what I'm speculating (and I can't think of anything else it could be), then I'm not sure it's Government's responsibility to sort that case out.

It could be the opposite side of the argument (or a combination of both) where a supplier has increased the monthly payment far above the likely cost of energy even at the new prices. This activity of suppliers holding more cash in their bank at the expense of poorer consumers has been widespread according to consumer groups.

 

[Typhoon]

Has anyone done any number crunching on the story of Elsie. It just struck me, the story is her energy costs have risen from £17 to £85 a month. That's an exactly 5x increase. How is that possible? Gas and electricity bills have risen quite a bit, but I'm pretty sure no household gas/electricity supplier has increased its prices by 400%! The only explanation I can think of off the top of my head is if she had been under-paying on her direct debit for quite a while and therefore owed her supplier quite a bit of money, and her supplier has increased a direct debit to make that up. That explanation also fits with that £17 a month seems an unrealistically low amount to pay for gas/electricity, even before the last year's price rises.

It could be the opposite side of the argument (or a combination of both) where a supplier has increased the monthly payment far above the likely cost of energy even at the new prices. This activity of suppliers holding more cash in their bank at the expense of poorer consumers has been widespread according to consumer groups.

There is another possible scenario, that for several years she had been over paying and built up a big surplus so the energy company had put her on a reduced charge while the surplus is eaten away. I believe some energy companies were reluctant to return surpluses until and unless pressured to do so, which is part of the reason customers whose supplier went bust are in a difficult situation in that they have to wait for the money to be returned (which ties in with the above post). The new supplier must offer a realistic charge and not account for the surplus.

It might be down to how regularly the meter is read (I can't remember when our's was last read, they read our neighbour's but not ours - same provider, and this time they wouldn't accept my reading).

All of this is speculation, which is the problem with individual cases. Johnson, if he had any sense, should have put forward a general solution and offered to get someone to look at Elsie's particular problem. There might even have got a photo-opportunity out of it.

 

[Gloster]

I would think that it is almost certain that the facts were checked before broadcast. This was a high profile interview (due to Johnson’s reluctance to answer questions), so I can’t see that they would just grab any old story and question him on that. The risk to ITV (Dorries would go berserk) and the public embarrassment if they were wrong, even on the smallest details, could be seriously damaging.

 

[JamesT]

Could a 5x increase be explained by being on a stunningly good fixed deal last year which has ended now so they’re on the capped rate?

 

[GusB]

Has anyone done any number crunching on the story of Elsie. It just struck me, the story is her energy costs have risen from £17 to £85 a month. That's an exactly 5x increase. How is that possible? Gas and electricity bills have risen quite a bit, but I'm pretty sure no household gas/electricity supplier has increased its prices by 400%! The only explanation I can think of off the top of my head is if she had been under-paying on her direct debit for quite a while and therefore owed her supplier quite a bit of money, and her supplier has increased a direct debit

I've not done any number crunching, but it seems plausible for a few reasons:

• Underpayment of direct debit, as you have mentioned. This shouldn't really be left to go on any longer than six months, when the twice-yearly review is carried out.
• Over-estimation of costs, as @AM9 has suggested. This can happen if there's a drop in consumption that hasn't been picked up on (eg someone moves out; newer, more efficient appliances are installed).
• How often is the meter being read? Billing systems can only work on the information they have, and if estimated readings are being used, it can lead to either of the above scenarios
• It could just be that she was on a very cheap fixed tariff for a year or two and that this has come to an end, in which case she'll have been moved onto the standard variable tariff.

In my own case, my monthly payment doubled, and that was before the most recent round of price increases. I dread to think how much I'd be paying if I was on my supplier's SVT now.

 

[The Ham]

Has anyone done any number crunching on the story of Elsie. It just struck me, the story is her energy costs have risen from £17 to £85 a month. That's an exactly 5x increase. How is that possible? Gas and electricity bills have risen quite a bit, but I'm pretty sure no household gas/electricity supplier has increased its prices by 400%! The only explanation I can think of off the top of my head is if she had been under-paying on her direct debit for quite a while and therefore owed her supplier quite a bit of money, and her supplier has increased a direct debit to make that up. That explanation also fits with that £17 a month seems an unrealistically low amount to pay for gas/electricity, even before the last year's price rises.

Obviously, anyone with any compassion is going to feel for someone in that plight of riding buses because they can't afford heating and I don't want to take away from the Boris's answer in that interview was totally crass. But if the explanation is what I'm speculating (and I can't think of anything else it could be), then I'm not sure it's Government's responsibility to sort that case out.

Whilst x5 does appear high, it's possible that other factors have come to bear.

Being on a good deal, having over paid the previous year could explain it.

However given the very low base cost, I suspect that a lot of the increase is because of the large hike in standing charges which have been brought in.

Whilst the actual energy may not have gone up by that much, the standing charges have and for me these have doubled, although that could be more for others.

Likewise if they were on a 2 year fixed rate and then moved to the standard rate, that could explain a significant increase.

Others have questioned why is she living somewhere where she's not entitled to the £150 through the council tax rebate. Well it's said that she's in a council house, so it's not always easy to find a suitable replacement.

However she certainly can't do what some have suggested which is to downsize and live on the difference.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would think that it is almost certain that the facts were checked before broadcast. This was a high profile interview (due to Johnson’s reluctance to answer questions), so I can’t see that they would just grab any old story and question him on that. The risk to ITV (Dorries would go berserk) and the public embarrassment if they were wrong, even on the smallest details, could be seriously damaging.

Sure, I would imagine ITV would've done some fact checking so I don't particularly doubt that Elsie's payment has risen by the amount claimed. I think the issue is that that kind of increase doesn't look like it could be explained by the recent energy price rises alone - there must've been something else in Elsie's case bumping up the payments. And I see a few people have suggested ideas for what that something else might be.

One other thing that's puzzling me. She is reported as claiming to be paying £85/month on energy and is barely able to feed herself after that. The state pension is £141.85 a week, which comes to about £600/month - so she should have about £500/month left after paying energy bills. She presumably has to pay rent, but if she's on a low income she'd presumably be eligible to claim housing benefit to make most of that up. Maybe she hasn't paid enough pension contributions to get the full state pension, but in that case, can't you claim universal credit? Obviously, not knowing the details of her situation, all we can do is guess. But based on those figures, I'm struggling to see how her income could be so low as not to be able to cope with paying £20/week in energy bills. What am I missing?

At any rate I agree with @Typhoon that the answer Boris should've given was to offer to have someone look into Elsie's case.

 

[jon0844]

I can only imagine how hard the Tories are working to make Elsie look like she's hiding something or not as worse off as she makes out to be. And I can just bet that some sections of the media will be working overtime to assist them in the reporting (if they haven't already)

God help her if she ever got into trouble during her long life.

 

[Kite159]

Could a 5x increase be explained by being on a stunningly good fixed deal last year which has ended now so they’re on the capped rate?

Or even gone from a good fixed rate deal to getting semi-forced onto one of those very poor fixed rate deal "you will be protected against the price hikes in October" from a salesperson from the energy company.

 

[The Ham]

Sure, I would imagine ITV would've done some fact checking so I don't particularly doubt that Elsie's payment has risen by the amount claimed. I think the issue is that that kind of increase doesn't look like it could be explained by the recent energy price rises alone - there must've been something else in Elsie's case bumping up the payments. And I see a few people have suggested ideas for what that something else might be.

One other thing that's puzzling me. She is reported as claiming to be paying £85/month on energy and is barely able to feed herself after that. The state pension is £141.85 a week, which comes to about £600/month - so she should have about £500/month left after paying energy bills. She presumably has to pay rent, but if she's on a low income she'd presumably be eligible to claim housing benefit to make most of that up. Maybe she hasn't paid enough pension contributions to get the full state pension, but in that case, can't you claim universal credit? Obviously, not knowing the details of her situation, all we can do is guess. But based on those figures, I'm struggling to see how her income could be so low as not to be able to cope with paying £20/week in energy bills. What am I missing?

At any rate I agree with @Typhoon that the answer Boris should've given was to offer to have someone look into Elsie's case.

IIRC, it was said that her income was £170 per week, that's just shy of £9,000 per year. That's not very much however you look at it.

Now it maybe that it's possible to live on that (and I'm sure that there's likely to be some who have to), however it's not going to be easy and will require some tough choices (and probably a fair few things where the choice is made for you).

The closest I got (and even then still quite a long way away from the level of income being talked about) was having a household income of £24,000 about 15 years ago and paying full market rent (taking about 1/3 of my take home salary) and knowing that there was limited slack beyond what was needed to be paid. However even then we were able to run a car and weren't needing to use savings (and in saying that I know that we were lucky to have them & instantly puts us way above what many have) to keep going.

As such, whilst I have more of an understanding than the likes of Boris, I would still say that my experience is still a long long way from what many have to deal with for a lot longer (and potentially with kids as well).

 

[GusB]

Sure, I would imagine ITV would've done some fact checking so I don't particularly doubt that Elsie's payment has risen by the amount claimed. I think the issue is that that kind of increase doesn't look like it could be explained by the recent energy price rises alone - there must've been something else in Elsie's case bumping up the payments. And I see a few people have suggested ideas for what that something else might be.

One other thing that's puzzling me. She is reported as claiming to be paying £85/month on energy and is barely able to feed herself after that. The state pension is £141.85 a week, which comes to about £600/month - so she should have about £500/month left after paying energy bills. She presumably has to pay rent, but if she's on a low income she'd presumably be eligible to claim housing benefit to make most of that up. Maybe she hasn't paid enough pension contributions to get the full state pension, but in that case, can't you claim universal credit? Obviously, not knowing the details of her situation, all we can do is guess. But based on those figures, I'm struggling to see how her income could be so low as not to be able to cope with paying £20/week in energy bills. What am I missing?

At any rate I agree with @Typhoon that the answer Boris should've given was to offer to have someone look into Elsie's case.

Is it really fair to be picking over the finances of someone who is struggling to get by? You say that all we can do is guess; to a certain extent, yes, but it's clear that you've never been in the situation where you've had to account for every penny!

For starters, being over pension age, Elsie would not be entitled to Universal Credit. It's not entirely clear that she would be eligible for housing benefit either; it would depend on her individual circumstances. If her income is sufficiently low she may be entitled to pension credit. Pension credit can be a nightmare to apply for, and when they make a mistake they always make sure they get any overpayments back in the shortest amount of time - this happened to my mother and it upset her no end because they were the ones who got the sums wrong.

Is Elsie aware that she may be entitled to claim additional benefits? Perhaps she's one of the many people who are too proud to claim any additional benefits, thereby leaving lots unclaimed.

Or it could be the case that she tried to put a little bit of extra income away when she was working, but when the rainy day came it turned out that she was just over the threshold for any means-tested benefits. This happened to my grandmother, who thought she was doing the right thing by paying a wee bit into a private pension.

Anyhow, going back to whether or not a five-fold rise is feasible, I've worked out that it would cost me three times what I was paying last year if I'd gone on to the standard variable tariff with my current provider. As I've mentioned in another thread, I think I dodged a bullet by ditching my (now defunct) supplier and was lucky to pick up a 3-year fixed rate tariff before everything went skyward. £100 as opposed to £45 was a big hit for me, but it could have ended up being a lot worse (£133 would be my monthly payment now, on the variable rate).

 

[Andyh82]

I’m always a bit sceptical when these individual case studies get thrown out in political debates, you never know the full story, there could be more to the individual circumstance that no end of reasonable intervention could fix.

Like when an audience member on Question Time says that they volunteer at a food bank and that even doctors and nurses are attending.

It could be a nurse who is living beyond their means with a far too big house and far too expensive car who is having to use a food bank, or someone who is notoriously bad with money. It might not be, but it could be, but it doesn’t matter if the story has served its purpose on the night.

The best answer a politician should give, is to say they will look into their individual circumstance, which is obviously what Boris failed to do yesterday and made it worse.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Is it really fair to be picking over the finances of someone who is struggling to get by? You say that all we can do is guess; to a certain extent, yes,

If that person has invited tv cameras into their home to show how she lives and is therefore (as far as we can tell, willingly) allowing herself to be used to make political points about the cost of living, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask questions. I think it's obvious that you need to take care and be considerate about assessing individual's circumstances, but at the same time, if you're not allowed to question the finances of someone who's put their finances in the public eye, then basically anyone could claim they are struggling, with no way to verify their claims.

but it's clear that you've never been in the situation where you've had to account for every penny!

Whatever makes you think you can deduce that about my life? Actually I can confirm that I *have* had a couple of periods the past been in the situation where I had to account for every penny.

For starters, being over pension age, Elsie would not be entitled to Universal Credit. It's not entirely clear that she would be eligible for housing benefit either; it would depend on her individual circumstances. If her income is sufficiently low she may be entitled to pension credit. Pension credit can be a nightmare to apply for, and when they make a mistake they always make sure they get any overpayments back in the shortest amount of time - this happened to my mother and it upset her no end because they were the ones who got the sums wrong.

Ah, thanks for the info. That's the kind of information I was hoping someone would provide in answer to my post.

 

[The Ham]

I’m always a bit sceptical when these individual case studies get thrown out in political debates, you never know the full story, there could be more to the individual circumstance that no end of reasonable intervention could fix.

Like when an audience member on Question Time says that they volunteer at a food bank and that even doctors and nurses are attending.

It could be a nurse who is living beyond their means with a far too big house and far too expensive car who is having to use a food bank, or someone who is notoriously bad with money. It might not be, but it could be, but it doesn’t matter if the story has served its purpose on the night.

The best answer a politician should give, is to say they will look into their individual circumstance, which is obviously what Boris failed to do yesterday and made it worse.

Whilst there are outlying cases of people being reckless with their money who are using food banks they are very much the exception.

In part, as the saving (in the case of someone having an excessive lifestyle, car or house) from using a food bank is likely to be fairly insignificant compared to their costs.