Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[deltic]

Socially conservative. Yes.

But maybe economically slightly left of centre?

Yes I meant to say socially conservative

 

[brad465]

I'm not sure about Cameron being centre-right. I recall a party political broadcast it showed him talking to a woman with savings, who had been affected by interest rates cuts. He responded by saying she shouldn't be penalised for doing the right thing by saving.

Yet, under Cameron, the Conservatives introduced Universal Credit and in doing so increased the number of people who either fail to qualify for benefits or get a reduced level because they have money in savings. Basically extending a policy that means people are penalised for saving, rather than splashing out on cars and holidays.

Cameron and Osborne also took a leaf out of the Thatcher book, in that they wanted to continue with austerity but the voters didn't, so they tried to make austerity fashionable, rather than changing their policy.

While the Tories at the time didn't do much to help those saving, I'd say the main force that punished them was the Bank of England, whose 0.5% interest rate policy discouraged saving in favour of asset price inflation and market speculation; we're still suffering the effects of this today, if anything the last 2 years has seen us reap the whirlwind of such unprecedented monetary policy.

I think it's more complex than that. It's true that the Tory vote share was almost unchanged in 2015 (very slightly up), but that was despite UKIP coming from nowhere to take 12.6% of the vote. A lot of those UKIP votes would have been defections from the Tories, which means in turn that a lot of other people must have swapped from Labour/the LibDems to the Tories in order to keep the Tory vote share steady.

Personally I think the key thing was that David Cameron simply came across at the time as a more credible Prime Minister than Ed Miliband (people will of course have different views about whether subsequent events justified that perception ). That plus the LibDems had made themselves hugely unpopular with their u-turn on tuition fees causing people to see them as unprincipled, and some of their lost votes would have gone to the Tories.

That election was the messiest election in living memory I think with regards to where votes went: UKIP only got 1 seat for all those votes; the SNP got far less votes numerically and scooped up almost all of Scotland for it (I don't support either of them for the record). It should be said that Labour's share did slightly increase on 2010 in that election, and benefitted from some Tory and Lib Dem losses, but their seat count went down largely due to the SNP gains (the SNP took 40 seats off Labour, while Labour had a net loss nationally of 26).

 

[takno]

While the Tories at the time didn't do much to help those saving, I'd say the main force that punished them was the Bank of England, whose 0.5% interest rate policy discouraged saving in favour of asset price inflation and market speculation; we're still suffering the effects of this today, if anything the last 2 years has seen us reap the whirlwind of such unprecedented monetary policy.

That election was the messiest election in living memory I think with regards to where votes went: UKIP only got 1 seat for all those votes; the SNP got far less votes numerically and scooped up almost all of Scotland for it (I don't support either of them for the record). It should be said that Labour's share did slightly increase on 2010 in that election, and benefitted from some Tory and Lib Dem losses, but their seat count went down largely due to the SNP gains (the SNP took 40 seats off Labour, while Labour had a net loss nationally of 26).

The BoE's unprecedentedly loose monetary policy was largely a result of the inappropriately tight fiscal policy. Put less politely it was the only way they could keep the economy off its knees given the hammering that Osborne was giving it.

Admittedly we weren't the only people at it, but I'm sure at some point Germany and the rest of the EU are going to wake up to what an stupidly-revered disaster Merkel was as well.

Overall the real story of the 2015 election was how badly Clegg messed up the anti-Tory coalition, and how damaging the SNP surge was. The complete collapse of tactical voting prevented a non-Tory coalition, and combined with the SNP surge probably prevented a Labour majority government. People in Scotland don't really acknowledge enough their role in all of Britain's downfall, since the coalition of chaos thing sold so well in England and may ultimately have led to Brexit.

 

[Cloud Strife]

People in Scotland don't really acknowledge enough their role in all of Britain's downfall, since the coalition of chaos thing sold so well in England and may ultimately have led to Brexit.

What is there to acknowledge? It's not our fault that England voted for the Tories which led to Brexit. The Tories only won a single seat in Scotland, so we can't be blamed in any way for an English and Welsh Tory vote which led to Brexit.

If Labour in particular hadn't made THE VOW along with the Lib Dems, then perhaps their collapse wouldn't have been so catastrophic. As it stands, voters in Scotland still remember the lies told by Labour before the independence referendum.

 

[takno]

What is there to acknowledge? It's not our fault that England voted for the Tories which led to Brexit. The Tories only won a single seat in Scotland, so we can't be blamed in any way for an English and Welsh Tory vote which led to Brexit.

If Labour in particular hadn't made THE VOW along with the Lib Dems, then perhaps their collapse wouldn't have been so catastrophic. As it stands, voters in Scotland still remember the lies told by Labour before the independence referendum.

Okay, probably shouldn't have poked that particular hornet's nest. There's always an ex-pat along to rant about any Scottish politics. I don't think the vow was particularly productive, or necessary, and ultimately it would never have happened if YouGov hadn't cobbled together a dodgy poll showing Yes winning.

I guess my point is that whether led by a largely artificial SNP-driven sense of outrage, or by students too green to see how they were being played, Cameron was able to collapse the anti-Tory coalition, and that 2015 vote was more destructive to us than any of us would have imagined at the time.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I don't think the vow was particularly productive, or necessary, and ultimately it would never have happened if YouGov hadn't cobbled together a dodgy poll showing Yes winning.

The thing with the "vow" is that if they had actually followed through, IndyRef2 would have been dead in the water. The opinion polls consistently show that the favoured position is for full devolution, and I still cannot understand why the UK Parliament simply doesn't deliver it and leave Scotland to get on with it.

Cameron was able to collapse the anti-Tory coalition, and that 2015 vote was more destructive to us than any of us would have imagined at the time.

I'd argue that the Tories in 2015 benefited from two main things:

1) The Lib Dems being widely perceived as having sold out for power, but being somewhat toothless as a result.
2) Labour being simply rudderless. They were struggling in Scotland after losing in 2007, and the 2011 election result simply left them without a clue.

At the same time, I do wonder if the English vote wasn't taking into account the fact that Labour would need smaller parties to help them govern. There seems to be a general undercurrent of English votes in that they prefer to have a Tory government rather than a government which relies in some way on other parties, with the exception of the DUP. Going back on topic, I think this is why I wouldn't rule out Sunak and the Tories in the next election. Voting Labour at a local level is safe, but whether English voters will agree to the possibility of a Labour government with SNP supply/confidence is another question.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Overall the real story of the 2015 election was how badly Clegg messed up the anti-Tory coalition, and how damaging the SNP surge was. The complete collapse of tactical voting prevented a non-Tory coalition, and combined with the SNP surge probably prevented a Labour majority government. People in Scotland don't really acknowledge enough their role in all of Britain's downfall, since the coalition of chaos thing sold so well in England and may ultimately have led to Brexit.

Might I suggest that Labour only getting an abysmal 30.4% of the popular vote (against the Tories' 36.8%) was a more likely reason that the 2015 election didn't lead to a majority Labour Government

 

[takno]

Might I suggest that Labour only getting an abysmal 30.4% of the popular vote (against the Tories' 36.8%) was a more likely reason that the 2015 election didn't lead to a majority Labour Government

You might suggest it, but I'd point out that the Tories picking that vote up from LibDems and Labour losing it in Scotland fully accounts for that, which is, um, exactly what I said. There isn't a trick here - the Tories won because people voted for them, and in the right places fewer people voted against them.

Nobody is saying that the 2015 election result didn't happen. You own that - it's yours to take home with you. The main point of contention is just that the 2015 election result was an absolute catastrophe for the country

 

[brad465]

I think this is why I wouldn't rule out Sunak and the Tories in the next election. Voting Labour at a local level is safe, but whether English voters will agree to the possibility of a Labour government with SNP supply/confidence is another question.

Depends how long the SNP troubles go on for and how damaging they end up being, and how Hamza Yousef actually turns out as SNP leader. SNP polling has dropped and projections are Labour will gain more seats in Scotland, which while not necessarily more than the SNP, potentially enough to weaken any Tory campaign about Labour/SNP deals, there is also a stronger perception down south about the SNP being weaker, and perception is everything in politics, even if the reality is very different. The fact that Stephen Flynn is resorting to attacking Labour in PMQs as much as the Tories shows how worried the SNP are right now.

 

[northwichcat]

While the Tories at the time didn't do much to help those saving, I'd say the main force that punished them was the Bank of England, whose 0.5% interest rate policy discouraged saving in favour of asset price inflation and market speculation; we're still suffering the effects of this today, if anything the last 2 years has seen us reap the whirlwind of such unprecedented monetary policy.

Do note that George Osborne appointed Mark Carney after being impressed with his work at the Bank of Canada.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2023 ==

And this was of course the fatal mistake for the Cameron-Osborne project, and a monumentally stupid decision. If he hadn't done that, he'd have likely remained in power until 2020, and then wasn't the plan for Osborne to succeed him? Going off-topic a bit, I wonder who would have won a hypothetical general election in 2020 following 10 years of Cameron?

In this hypothetical scanerio we likely would have seen a repeat of the down fall of Labour. Remember Gordon Brown had an excellent record as chancellor but he became PM just before a global recession and the recession was one of the main reasons for Labour losing votes in the 2010 election. Even without Brexit we would have still seen economic problems created by COVID and the war in Ukraine.

 

[GS250]

Going back on topic, I think this is why I wouldn't rule out Sunak and the Tories in the next election. Voting Labour at a local level is safe, but whether English voters will agree to the possibility of a Labour government with SNP supply/confidence is another question.

Yep. When push comes to shove many will hold their nose and vote Tory. Seen it time and time again.

 

[nw1]

Yep. When push comes to shove many will hold their nose and vote Tory. Seen it time and time again.

In previous examples the Tories weren't quite as unpopular as they are now, though.

 

[ainsworth74]

Just following on from this discussion in the local election results thread:

He has a police caution and was once a UKIP councillor before moving to the Tories.

The local media have been incredibly supine over what has been going on with the Tees Valley Mayor. @ainsworth74 will be able to offer more detailed information but I suggest posters buy a copy of Private Eye. There are articles every week about the Mayor and the Freeport.

There is also Tees Valley Monitor that does not pull any punches over what is happening on Teesside: https://www.teesvalleymonitor.com/

The Tories only held one seat, the other was held by an independent (who was re-elected) though, to be fair, they had been a Tory in 2019 but became an independent a couple of years ago as they quit in disgust, from memory, at the way some local planning issues were being railroaded through the relevant committee by the local Tories (I would have thought the behaviour of the national party was enough but either way!). So overall a loss of one seat for the Tories.

My local MP published a slightly entertaining take on the results locally that showed the Tories as having made six gains overall. More astute readers will have spotted that he was comparing April 2023 with the May 2023 election result and wondered why rather than the more tradition comparison with the previous election. The reason, in my opinion only, is because doing so makes it look better. If you compared with 2019 they would only have made one gain as they had eleven councillors on the local council after the 2019 election but managed to lose five of them to defections and by-election loses in the interim. So rather than a resurgence of the Tory vote they basically held steady with twelve following the recent election. Which I suppose in some respects is better than they might expect considering what's happened but still a rather different picture to that which my MP might want to paint...

Anyway, a most satisfactory result. Perhaps the PCC will focus on his day job now. Not like Cleveland Police are in special measures and were the first force to be rated inadequate or anything...


I'm not sure I can really add much but what I will say is that something isn't right about what's going on with Teesworks (the redevelopment of the all steelworks site) nor the Freeport itself. Perhaps it is all above board but there seems to be a very strong aversion to real scrutiny with the principles actors very quick to suggest ill intent by anyone who raises even basic questions about the various machinations which have led to a few private individuals being, seemingly, gifted massive stakes in land and scrap which is apparently being remediated at public expense. Whilst security and plant being used during some of this work is supplied by the relatives of the private developers even! Unfortunately, the local media have basically been turned into clickbait machines and are incapable of really doing any true investigative work whilst the national press (Private Eye exempted) are too busy focused on the Westminster psychodrama to worry about something being up on Teesside.

The Yorkshire Post have recently taken an interest following a slightly unhinged response to the editor of the YP on twitter from Simon Clarke (a local MP) when he asked a few questions about marine die off. Another running sore which the local Tories are very keen to suggest has nothing to do with the work ongoing on Teesside and will point to anything and everything to suggest that this is perfectly natural. Perhaps they're right but their extreme reactions do suggest that maybe something is afoot.

Watch this space! But whilst I have no evidence so this is purely my biased opinion I can't help but feel if we were reading about some of what's been going on up here in the context of another country we would be suggest that it was corrupt.

Thank you - i should have said that Private Eye is covering both the Freeport & the Teeswork sites. I would also chuck the airport into the mix as well. Lots of public money involved in that site also.

The good news is that the make up of the overarching governance boards dealing with the Freeport, Teesworks and general Teesside development will change after the local elections allowing us to hope that there will be more scrutiny of all activities undertaken.

Yes with further somewhat dubious ownership structures and an aversion to public scrutiny of millions of taxpayers money as with Teesworks.

Again, this could all be above board, but the way that the actors involved appear to be going to great lengths to avoid scrutiny and suggest ill intent behind any attempt to raise issues doesn't inspire confidence.

News broke yesterday that the directors of Teesworks (which includes the combined authority mayor, Mr Houchen) have had to give an undertaking to BP and Equinor (who are looking to invest £1.5bn in various energy schemes on the Teesworks site) that none of the assets involved have been acquired via an "unacceptable act" in what is described as a "bespoke clause" by Mr Houchen:

The companies have signed a lease agreement so they can build a gas-fired power plant and carbon capture facility on a 100-acre plot on the Teesworks site.

But before it was signed, they asked Teesworks directors for legal assurances that none of assets at the site had been acquired through an “unacceptable act”.

It comes after Andy McDonald, Labour MP for Middlesbrough, claimed the developers involved in the project are profiting from “industrial-scale corruption”, when he spoke in the House of Commons last month.

Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, who is running the Teesworks project, confirmed that a “bespoke clause” was inserted into their legal agreement, at the request of the two energy firms.

“As well as the clause, BP and Equinor wanted assurances, given the noise they were hearing,” he told The Yorkshire Post. “We were able to provide those assurances and they signed the deal last week. Now they’re investing north of £1.5bn on this site. If anything, it exonerates us.”

Labour MPs are concerned the taxpayer is spending millions on clearing and decontaminating the Teesworks site, but developers Chris Musgrave and Martin Corney have been handed a 90 per cent stake in a company called Teesworks Limited, which has options to buy valuable parcels of the remediated land for nominal fees and then lease them to investors.

...

Energy giants BP and Equinor agree to press ahead with £1.5bn plans in Teesside Freeport

Energy giants BP and Equinor agreed to press ahead with plans for £1.5bn development in Teesside Freeport after demanding a guarantee they are not becoming involved in a project marred by corruption.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

Presumably the two companies involved are now happy that everything is above board seeing as they've signed on the dotted line so on the one hand that's quite reassuring (as a local resident all I really care about is that our money is being well spent to develop the area, not just enriching a select few!). But equally it's still not massively encouraging that they've had to ask for such a clause in the first place!

 

[Gloster]

News broke yesterday that the directors of Teesworks (which includes the combined authority mayor, Mr Houchen) have had to give an undertaking to BP and Equinor (who are looking to invest £1.5bn in various energy schemes on the Teesworks site) that none of the assets involved have been acquired via an "unacceptable act" in what is described as a "bespoke clause" by Mr Houchen:

Presumably the two companies involved are now happy that everything is above board seeing as they've signed on the dotted line so on the one hand that's quite reassuring (as a local resident all I really care about is that our money is being well spent to develop the area, not just enriching a select few!). But equally it's still not massively encouraging that they've had to ask for such a clause in the first place!

It may well be above board and one hopes that BP and Equinor’s lawyers have scrutinised the phrasing of the clause very carefully. However, anyone can give such an assurance, whatever an ‘unacceptable act’ is, and BP and Equinor’s concern will be that they will not lose out on their investment, not how government money and property has been used. But it might still be above board: Private Eye will have a couple of days to chew it over.

 

[MikeWM]

Andrew Bridgen has decided not to appeal against his expulsion from the Conservatives, and this morning has joined Laurence Fox's Reclaim party, becoming its first MP.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Andrew Bridgen has decided not to appeal against his expulsion from the Conservatives, and this morning has joined Laurence Fox's Reclaim party, becoming its first MP.

And hopefully last......

 

[brad465]

Labour will be delighted if Bridgen stands in the next GE under the Reclaim banner, given he'd probably split the vote and turn it into a marginal in doing so...

 

[takno]

It may well be above board and one hopes that BP and Equinor’s lawyers have scrutinised the phrasing of the clause very carefully. However, anyone can give such an assurance, whatever an ‘unacceptable act’ is, and BP and Equinor’s concern will be that they will not lose out on their investment, not how government money and property has been used. But it might still be above board: Private Eye will have a couple of days to chew it over.

What BP will be looking for first and foremost is to make it clear they aren't part of any collusion might have gone on. If it turns out that a couple of local chancers have overplayed their quite-possibly very temporary access to local power structures, then they will probably end up broke and spending a few years in jail, and that won't bother BP at all, but any of the blame spreads to BP then that could get very costly. Secondarily they will be looking to ensure that even if the land ends up getting taken back off the existing owners, nobody will be so actively annoyed with the tenants that they want to kick them off, which again is addressed by having enough cover to say "we are as shocked as you are".

 

[najaB]

What BP will be looking for first and foremost is to make it clear they aren't part of any collusion might have gone on.

Indeed. That sounds like a classic CYA manoeuvre. "We sought and received assurances that everything was above board" gets you out of a lot of potential trouble.

 

[MikeWM]

And hopefully last......

Each to their own, I suppose. Looking at their website, I don't see anything obvious I disagree with, and I really like their specific emphasis on freedom of speech, especially given things like the Online 'Safety' Bill coming down the road.

--

Labour will be delighted if Bridgen stands in the next GE under the Reclaim banner, given he'd probably split the vote and turn it into a marginal in doing so...

He has said he will.

Looking at the election results he appears to have made NW Leicestershire a fairly safe seat - 62% of the vote in 2019, he's increased his vote share at each election, from 44% in 2010. How much of that is due to the person and how much of that is due to the party - I guess we'll find out in a year-and-a-bit.

 

[edwin_m]

Each to their own, I suppose. Looking at their website, I don't see anything obvious I disagree with, and I really like their specific emphasis on freedom of speech, especially given things like the Online 'Safety' Bill coming down the road.

Bridgen has a right to freedom of speech. But by accepting him as their representative, Reclaim is condoning his view that the Covid vaccination programme is comparable to a genocide that killed several million people. That strikes me as monumentally stupid as well as grossly offensive. A quick skim of his Wikipedia page reveals a whole range of other alleged misdeeds.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Bridgen has a right to freedom of speech. But by accepting him as their representative, Reclaim is condoning his view that the Covid vaccination programme is comparable to a genocide that killed several million people. That strikes me as monumentally stupid as well as grossly offensive. A quick skim of his Wikipedia page reveals a whole range of other alleged misdeeds.

Many of them are substantiated, not mere allegations.

He's a nasty piece of work.

He's also my cousin's MP, and she detests him. She told me of a hustings she'd been at where Bridgen was criticised for the amount he was spending on hotels in London, where in response Bridgen justified his expenses on the grounds that the hotel was near to Parliament and therefore wouldn't be "a cheap Travelodge", and then bragged that when he asked his staff to work from his office in Parliament he didn't allow them to claim their accommodation costs on expenses. So you can add hypocrisy to the list I suppose

 

[MikeWM]

Bridgen has a right to freedom of speech. But by accepting him as their representative, Reclaim is condoning his view that the Covid vaccination programme is comparable to a genocide that killed several million people. That strikes me as monumentally stupid as well as grossly offensive.

At what point did it become unacceptable to mention the Holocaust in any way, even as a point of reference? Bridgen *quoted someone else* - a Jew living in Israel, as it happens - who claimed it was the worst thing *since* the Holocaust, which doesn't diminish the Holocaust in any way. Which is a fairly silly opinion, but I fail to see what is offensive about it.

 

[takno]

Bridgen has a right to freedom of speech. But by accepting him as their representative, Reclaim is condoning his view that the Covid vaccination programme is comparable to a genocide that killed several million people. That strikes me as monumentally stupid as well as grossly offensive. A quick skim of his Wikipedia page reveals a whole range of other alleged misdeeds.

Reclaim really isn't getting anything in Andrew Bridgen which is more problematic than they already have. They seem to be at heart a party founded on a racist sulk from a not-especially-talented actor, who jump on every "anti woke" talking point they can find without really bothering to take a position at all.

It's a shame because I do appreciate their emphasis on the government not inserting itself into peoples' lives too much - I can agree that "online safety" over secure communication is a dangerous path, and that lockdown was too long, too strict and not especially valuable. On vaccines though, this strange howling about genocide just makes it impossible to have a more nuanced position. It just made it too easy for people throw insults like anti-vax at people who held considered positions on vaccine passports and other mandation, or who thought that giving it indiscriminately to all kids and young adults was a very slightly risky waste of everybody's time and money.

Reclaim and Bridgen are ultimately not smart enough and lack the temperament to make a useful difference on any of the causes they support

 

[najaB]

At what point did it become unacceptable to mention the Holocaust in any way, even as a point of reference? Bridgen *quoted someone else* - a Jew living in Israel, as it happens - who claimed it was the worst thing *since* the Holocaust, which doesn't diminish the Holocaust in any way. Which is a fairly silly opinion, but I fail to see what is offensive about it.

The problem is that in saying that "A is the worst thing to happen since B" you are saying that B is of similar import and impact as A.

Which means one of two things: B was objectively bad and A is objectively bad too or, and this the the problem, A isn't bad and so by implication neither was B.

 

[MikeWM]

The problem is that in saying that "A is the worst thing to happen since B" you are saying that B is of similar import and impact as A.

Which means one of two things: A was objectively bad and B is objectively bad too or, and this the the problem, B isn't bad and so by implication neither was A.

But Bridgen isn't exactly keeping it a secret that he believes the former (that both things were bad) - he's no fan of the wide vaccine rollout and thinks it has caused more problems than it solved. Whether individuals agree with that or not, it is pretty obvious that this is Bridgen's opinion, and that of the person he quoted.

 

[najaB]

But Bridgen isn't exactly keeping it a secret that he believes the former (that both things were bad) - he's no fan of the wide vaccine rollout and thinks it has caused more problems than it solved.

Which is fair enough, and it's an important part of living in a free society that he can and should be able to express his opinion that the vaccine was a bad thing. But why does he need to bring the Holocaust into it at all? Can't he make his point based on the facts (as he sees them) about the vaccine, without having to resort to emotive comparisons?

 

[takno]

But Bridgen isn't exactly keeping it a secret that he believes the former (that both things were bad) - he's no fan of the wide vaccine rollout and thinks it has caused more problems than it solved. Whether individuals agree with that or not, it is pretty obvious that this is Bridgen's opinion, and that of the person he quoted.

One of the problems of course is that somebody living in Israel was subject to a much more extreme vaccine programme, and can more legitimately express views relating to the Holocaust.

I tend to agree that Bridgen didn't really do anything that I find objectionable by basically sharing somebody else's opinion for wider discussion. Most of the offense and disgust on the issue has been manufactured by people who won't have read the quote, or any context around it, and won't have any reference to the wider way in which Bridgen uses social media. It just that in a wider sense the man is an oaf who makes it way too easy to dislike him as well as disagree with him.

The everyday words and behaviour of several cabinet members is more problematic though. It does no good to any party to expel Bridgen when they give such support to Braveman.

 

[MikeWM]

Which is fair enough, and it's an important part of living in a free society that he can and should be able to express his opinion that the vaccine was a bad thing. But why does he need to bring the Holocaust into it at all? Can't he make his point based on the facts (as he sees them) about the vaccine, without having to resort to emotive comparisons?

I agree - I don't think it was helpful in the slightest.

I do think it was simply a poor decision to make that tweet though, rather than offensive or indeed the silly anti-semitic slurs that get put around when people are trying to discredit other people [1] - and I don't see how it can be justified to kick him out of his political party on that basis. People make poor decisions as to what they put out on twitter and elsewhere all the time, there wouldn't be anyone left in any party if that principle was fairly applied.

[1] Bridgen has confirmed that his lawsuit against Matt Hancock for calling him anti-semitic on twitter is going ahead

 

[Tetchytyke]

But by accepting him as their representative, Reclaim is condoning his view that the Covid vaccination programme is comparable to a genocide that killed several million people. That strikes me as monumentally stupid as well as grossly offensive.

That’s what Laurence Fox has been saying all along. Bridgen’s found his home, and is clearly hoping for a spot on GB News when he loses his seat next year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

News broke yesterday that the directors of Teesworks (which includes the combined authority mayor, Mr Houchen) have had to give an undertaking to BP and Equinor (who are looking to invest £1.5bn in various energy schemes on the Teesworks site) that none of the assets involved have been acquired via an "unacceptable act" in what is described as a "bespoke clause" by Mr Houchen

Such an assurance is not worth the paper it is written on, except to protect BP should the lease have been signed by Houchen and his lackeys in bad faith and should there be a subsequent attempt to void the lease.

The local media have been incredibly supine over what has been going on with the Tees Valley Mayor.

It’s almost as though Houchen is friends with bigwigs at The Northern Echo.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

I do think it was simply a poor decision to make that tweet though, rather than offensive or indeed the silly anti-semitic slurs that get put around when people are trying to discredit other people

It was as bad as anything Diane Abbott said in her Observer article, and she was rightly thrown out of Labour for it.