Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
What value is any discussion or scrutiny of the Windsor Framework if those proposing it (or those opposing it) are free to say whatever they feel like? A vote for the framework guarantees a unicorn in every pot and a rainbow in every garage?
That is almost what Sunak said when announcing it And the ERG and DUP would very much beg to differ, having examined what the deal actually says.
But those sorts of issues are not what the privileges committee is about - some may say that is part of the problem. What Johnson did in Downing Street 2 or 3 years ago has no affect on my life, the economy, or anything else of consequence. Whether the Windsor Framework is a good thing or not may well have such consequences, and so I think making sure people are making accurate statements about it is rather more vital.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to make a major announcement today. I promise and pledge to all of my voters and my supporters and to all of the people of the United States: I will totally accept the results of this great and historic [2020] presidential election - if I win".
What Johnson did in Downing Street 2 or 3 years ago has no affect on my life, the economy, or anything else of consequence. Whether the Windsor Framework is a good thing or not may well have such consequences, and so I think making sure people are making accurate statements about it is rather more vital.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to make a major announcement today. I promise and pledge to all of my voters and my supporters and to all of the people of the United States: I will totally accept the results of this great and historic [2020] presidential election - if I win".
Straight out of the Trump playbook, really.
But again. If Johnson can get away with bold-faced lies to Parliament, why should anyone else worry about telling the truth?
What is truth? Attributed to a Roman Governor 2000 years ago in relation to Hands; Face; Space
Greater love hath no man that he lay down the lives of his friends, atributed IIRC to a former leader of the then Liberal Party in reference to a then PM; today's scapegoats/ sacrificial lambs include Sunak, Cummings, Dines, Cain, Carrie, Case, Reynolds, Harman, ...
I guess I just assume they're not telling the truth in general, and I don't see what is happening here having any effect on that.
But if we have to have one or the other, I'd far rather politicians were held to account when the lie about policies, or manifestos, or the reasons they are doing things, than when they lie about fairly minor details of their personal lives. (Better if they didn't lie about either, of course, but you can only expect so much!)
That is he’s made investments in the past and they’ve paid off well in capital gains. That tax rate is 20% for a higher rate taxpayer which drags down his overall tax rate. For a basic rate taxpayer capital gains is only 10%.
This is usually where aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates gets suggested. Though you’d also have to bring back indexation or some other relief to account for inflation. (E.g. bought a property for £100k a year ago, sell for £110k today. Inflation means you’re even, but cash terms says there’s a £10k profit to be taxed).
I guess I just assume they're not telling the truth in general, and I don't see what is happening here having any effect on that.
But if we have to have one or the other, I'd far rather politicians were held to account when the lie about policies, or manifestos, or the reasons they are doing things, than when they lie about fairly minor details of their personal lives. (Better if they didn't lie about either, of course, but you can only expect so much!)
I doubt it will have much effect on public opinion. There has been ample evidence of Johnson falsehoods over the years and most people will already have drawn conclusions.
I agree he has told far more serious lies, the figure on the Brexit bus being the most obvious, and this contributed to a policy change that many would now consider to be a big mistake. I see this as different to making promises that aren't kept, as it was demonstrably false at the time it was said. The routine untruths from Johnson and others have also contributed to an erosion of confidence in politics - despite some evidence to the contrary, many politicians are motivated by doing the best thing for the country. However, lying to the general public with major adverse consequences is considered less serious than lying to Parliament on an issue that had no significant impact (though it might have done if our top civil servants had all gone down with Covid...).
(reported by The Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...partygate-brexit-latest-politics-news-updates)
and I really hope this is true.
The fact that only 22 Conservatives voted against Rishi Sunak's Northern Ireland deal (effectively, the vote was on a specific issue but it's the only vote that's going to happen) shows - I hope - that the formerly influential piece of the Conservative party is now more of a fringe, noises off rather than any significance.
If so, then I think it's good for the Conservative party - they'll do better at the next election - but, more importantly, for the country if we can now have someone in charge who is better than Boris or Liz.
I'm personally fed up with "Brexit", it's a done deal, it's a disaster and I voted against it but it's where we are, and we now have to make the best of it.
If Boris Johnson ends up losing his seat in Uxbridge at a by-election, that will be the icing on the cake.
However, lying to the general public with major adverse consequences is considered less serious than lying to Parliament on an issue that had no significant impact (though it might have done if our top civil servants had all gone down with Covid...).
The difference is that lying to the public in the form of campaigning is considered par for the course, but MPs have a duty to tell the truth in Parliament and, more importantly, to correct the record if something that they said turns out to have been incorrect. We don't expect every word that comes out of their mouths in the House to be objectively true, but we do expect them to tell the truth as they know it at the time.
The reason for the current inquiry isn't because he told an untruth in the House, it because he told a series of lies and never took the opportunity to set the record straight. Almost (though not quite) an example of "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up". It is because he appears to believe that rules don't apply to him, and that he can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants with zero consequence.
If he can't be trusted to tell the truth about something as simple as if he was at a party, could we have trusted him if, while he was still PM, he came to parliament to say that we had to go to war? And if he gets away with it then what reason is there for any other MP to tell us any uncomfortable truths?
The difference is that lying to the public in the form of campaigning is considered par for the course, but MPs have a duty to tell the truth in Parliament and, more importantly, to correct the record if something that they said turns out to have been incorrect. We don't expect every word that comes out of their mouths in the House to be objectively true, but we do expect them to tell the truth as they know it at the time.
The reason for the current inquiry isn't because he told an untruth in the House, it because he told a series of lies and never took the opportunity to set the record straight. Almost (though not quite) an example of "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up". It is because he appears to believe that rules don't apply to him, and that he can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants with zero consequence.
If he can't be trusted to tell the truth about something as simple as if he was at a party, could we have trusted him if, while he was still PM, he came to parliament to say that we had to go to war? And if he gets away with it then what reason is there for any other MP to tell us any uncomfortable truths?
I agree that's the situation, but I really don't think it's right.
Firstly, Parliament is supposed to be the servant of the public, so lying to the people ought to be penalised at least as severely as lying to Parliament (assuming in both cases the truth should have been known at the time, or corrected as soon as it became known). Especially when it's on a much more serious matter than a few parties.
Secondly, if he'd been punished for lying in 2016 he might never have reached a position with the power to do much more damage by repeated lies later on.
(reported by The Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...partygate-brexit-latest-politics-news-updates)
and I really hope this is true.
The fact that only 22 Conservatives voted against Rishi Sunak's Northern Ireland deal (effectively, the vote was on a specific issue but it's the only vote that's going to happen) shows - I hope - that the formerly influential piece of the Conservative party is now more of a fringe, noises off rather than any significance.
If so, then I think it's good for the Conservative party - they'll do better at the next election - but, more importantly, for the country if we can now have someone in charge who is better than Boris or Liz.
I'm personally fed up with "Brexit", it's a done deal, it's a disaster and I voted against it but it's where we are, and we now have to make the best of it.
If Boris Johnson ends up losing his seat in Uxbridge at a by-election, that will be the icing on the cake.
Sorry to mention him but the classical scholar Enoch Powell is reported to have observed that 'all political careers end in failure'.
And he should know, he took himself to Northern Ireland to become an Ulster Unionist MP at Wetminster.
A former PM, W.C.Churchill made observation in 1948, having been turned out of power by an 'ungrateful UK electorate', regarding those that fail to learn from history. He did come back !! Hasta la vista?
Firstly, Parliament is supposed to be the servant of the public, so lying to the people ought to be penalised at least as severely as lying to Parliament (assuming in both cases the truth should have been known at the time, or corrected as soon as it became known). Especially when it's on a much more serious matter than a few parties.
I agree that it would be nice for politicians to be honest all the time, but that's not the way the politics works.
So we need to be sure that the votes they take on proposed legislation or actions such as putting our armed forces in harm's way are based on truthful statements. They have the privilege of being able to speak freely in Parliament without risk of prosecution for libel precisely so that they can speak freely and honestly.
As I noted above, it's not the crime - it's the cover-up. The problem isn't the parties, it's that he lied about them, and more importantly continued to lie when he had the chance to correct his 'error'.
(reported by The Guardian at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...partygate-brexit-latest-politics-news-updates)
and I really hope this is true.
The fact that only 22 Conservatives voted against Rishi Sunak's Northern Ireland deal (effectively, the vote was on a specific issue but it's the only vote that's going to happen) shows - I hope - that the formerly influential piece of the Conservative party is now more of a fringe, noises off rather than any significance.
If so, then I think it's good for the Conservative party - they'll do better at the next election - but, more importantly, for the country if we can now have someone in charge who is better than Boris or Liz.
That actually seriously worries me, to be honest. The parliamentary Tory party has a large number of people I would consider reactionary hard-right-wingers, including, but not limited to, Braverman, Anderson, and Gullis. People who seem to get off on abusing "woke" individuals and ideas, using thoroughly unprofessional and inappropriate language. The ERG might be weaker, but it doesn't mean the reactionary element is any weaker. By appointing the likes of Braverman and Anderson, I am afraid I see Sunak as completely in-thrall to the hard-right of his party and (either) an exceedingly weak and gutless leader (or) someone who is firmly on the right of the Tory party himself.
Consequently any talk of the Tory party doing better at the next election seriously worries me. Any prospect of them winning, or being the largest party in a hung parliament, just means we keep the same old socially-conservative, right-wing, pro-austerity politics going until almost the end of the decade. A frightening prospect, IMO. We really need an alternative politics now, an antidote to the last 7 years.
I'm personally fed up with "Brexit", it's a done deal, it's a disaster and I voted against it but it's where we are, and we now have to make the best of it.
Again, the whole notion of accepting Brexit "as it is right now" - if that's what you mean, and apologies if not - is a little worrisome. While rejoining the actual EU would be difficult, I would like to see a future government make initial steps towards rejoining the customs union and single market. You won't get that out of Sunak, but I am more hopeful (despite what he claims) of Starmer making moves in that direction.
To be honest I'm no longer worried about Boris. It's other elements in the Tory party that scare me more (Gullis, Anderson, Braverman, and the like, as well as Sunak himself who seems to want to appease that element); Boris is essentially now a side-show and a largely-irrelevant clown.
That actually seriously worries me, to be honest. The parliamentary Tory party has a large number of people I would consider reactionary hard-right-wingers, including, but not limited to, Braverman, Anderson, and Gullis. People who seem to get off on abusing "woke" individuals and ideas, using thoroughly unprofessional and inappropriate language.
Do you mean, language like, reactionary hard right-wingers? or, to quote from further down your post, hard-right, or gutless?
I do find it puzzling that in your posts you constantly, either directly or by implication, accuse Conservative politicians of using insulting language towards people on the left, while at the same time you don't seem to notice that you yourself are constantly doing the exact same thing that you repeatedly accuse the Conservatives of.
Or, to put it another way, if it's not OK to call someone 'woke' in a slightly derogatory sense then how can it be OK to call someone 'hard-right' or 'gutless' with the same derogatory sense? Surely if you want to be consistent then, either (1) all those terms are OK, or (2) none of those terms are OK?
I do find it puzzling that in your posts you constantly, either directly or by implication, accuse Conservative politicians of using insulting language towards people on the left, while at the same time you don't seem to notice that you yourself are constantly doing the exact same thing that you repeatedly accuse the Conservatives of.
Describing someone who expresses hard-right opinions as being "hard-right" isn't really in the same league as referring to an "invasion" of asylum seekers though, is it?
Do you mean, language like, reactionary hard right-wingers? or, to quote from further down your post, hard-right, or gutless?
I do find it puzzling that in your posts you constantly, either directly or by implication, accuse Conservative politicians of using insulting language towards people on the left, while at the same time you don't seem to notice that you yourself are constantly doing the exact same thing that you repeatedly accuse the Conservatives of.
Or, to put it another way, if it's not OK to call someone 'woke' in a slightly derogatory sense then how can it be OK to call someone 'hard-right' or 'gutless' with the same derogatory sense? Surely if you want to be consistent then, either (1) all those terms are OK, or (2) none of those terms are OK?
I am just a lay-person commenting anonymously on a forum. I do not represent constituents or the country.
I think it's unreasonable to criticise lay-people commenting anonymously on a forum for robustly critiquing the way the country is run.
And I see "reactionary hard-right-winger" is an objective description of the politics of many Tory politicians, based on the evidence that I see on the news and on their Twitter posts, and "gutless" an objective description of Sunak, based on the way he has promoted the likes of Anderson and Braverman, presumably because he is afraid of the right-wing of the party. "Tofu-eating wokerati", and similar phrases coming out of the mouths of Anderson, Braverman, Gullis and their wing within the Tory party is non-objective.
Suella Braverman is representing a constituency, the Home Office and the entire country. I hope you understand why to have someone in such a high position of office using terms like "tofu-eating wokerati" is completely unacceptable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Describing someone who expresses hard-right opinions as being "hard-right" isn't really in the same league as referring to an "invasion" of asylum seekers though, is it?
The Conservative Party are really doing their very best to thoroughly alienate seemingly all those anywhere on the liberal and/or left spectra.
Put it this way, since the Illegal Migration Bill/Lineker fiasco, my opinion of them has plunged to record depths, if that were possible.
It's not just their policies and actions, it's the way that they very publicly use a certain kind of rather abusive language at people they don't like, or the target of their policies (migrants), entirely inappropriate for high office. I was no fan of people like Thatcher and Tebbit, but, while their language was often - to put it a certain way - robust, they would not, IIRC, stoop so low as to insult their ideological opponents so brazenly.
This is what makes the post-2019 Tory party so very, very different to any other ruling party I have experienced from Thatcher onwards, and probably well before that, too.
Details of Liz Truss' honours list have come out, which include 4 individuals believed to have been advising her agenda, including head of the opaque think tank the IEA and long term aide Ruth Porter:
Considering Truss couldn't even survive 50 days, and all the damage she did as PM, there is no way she should be allowed to nominate anybody to the Lords, especially those believed to have influenced her bad policy choices. Of course really nobody should be getting nominated to the Lords as an unelected chamber, but even if it's the least worst option Truss shouldn't be putting anyone in it.
Although Sunak appears to be making a fair fist of trying to make the Conservatives electable, those behind him appear to be doing jut the opposite.
If it isn't Johnson and his 'I didn't know what the rules were so I asked others' defense when everyone else was supposed to understand them without assistance, and the likes of Duncan Smith and Rees Mogg siding with the DUP we have the return of nineties sleeze:
Led By Donkeys undercover investigation reveals Tory MPs charge 10k a day for consultancy
It is actually worse because two were senior ministers and the other a senior backbencher, they must have known about what backbenchers got up to in Major's time. Hancock is at least going, whether Spelthorne really wants someone so easily duped as Kwarteng must be questionable. He's probably on the phone right now, it is his bank, there is suspicious activity on his account and he needs to move all his money to a safe account.
I think they all thought they were going to be booted out and decided to milk every money making opportunity possible before throwing the match on the petrol soaked house as they left.. but now they seem to think they may be in with a chance so this won't look good.
There are various criticisms that can justifiably be made against the MPs (they have already got a job, would they be beholden to the company, security, etc.), but even more important, to my mind, is that the rules allow them to do this. The rules that allowed the out-and-out sleaze of the early 1990s have not changed much: the Labour Party can’t escape some blame for this, but the Conservatives are deeply enmired. The rules on paid lobbying and second jobs need to be completely overhauled, but one fears that if or when Labour gets into power, they will just have so much mess to clear up that this won’t be a priority.
There are various criticisms that can justifiably be made against the MPs (they have already got a job, would they be beholden to the company, security, etc.), but even more important, to my mind, is that the rules allow them to do this. The rules that allowed the out-and-out sleaze of the early 1990s have not changed much: the Labour Party can’t escape some blame for this, but the Conservatives are deeply enmired. The rules on paid lobbying and second jobs need to be completely overhauled, but one fears that if or when Labour gets into power, they will just have so much mess to clear up that this won’t be a priority.
This "sting" operation should be of grave concern. Not that they are willing to take money, A Tory NOT taking money would be newsworthy, but the fact that they were willing to be "employed" by someone they had done insufficient, or no, due diligence on. Suppose the Korean firm had been a Russian or Chinese spy ring, pretending to be Korean? How far would these MP's go down the line, how much would they give away, before becoming suspicious? Or even subject to blackmail?
Luckily the Minister of Defence doesn't appear to be involved/fallen for it, but these MP's need removing as they are a security risk. Speaking and organising payment to a "business" that they clearly haven't a clue aren't legit?? And they are gifted with protecting us??
Luckily the Minister of Defence doesn't appear to be involved/fallen for it, but these MP's need removing as they are a security risk. Speaking and organising payment to a "business" that they clearly haven't a clue aren't legit?? And they are gifted with protecting us??
We still have some months before they're removed in the normal way, ie the democratic process. Both have proven themselves to be comedically inept and we are lumped with the twin legacies of their abysmal decisions and failures. Doesn't help they both have egos the size of Jupiter but skin like tissue paper. Let's hope their constituencies do the right thing at the ballot box.
As an aside between I'm a Celeb and this I'm beginning to wonder how large Hancock's spousal & child maintenance payments are.
Suella Braverman may lose her seat tonight because of boundary changes to be introduced before the next election; essentially she and Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) both want to contest the new seat of Fareham and Waterlooville. The voters here are local Conservative members. In February The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...to-find-safe-seat-for-next-election-dfc0l7bvk) said
Local sources said they expected Drummond to win, which would leave Braverman looking for another constituency.
The Express’s local source said that a month or so ago, they believed Suella Braverman would lose the battle, as she didn’t have any links with the members.
so it would appear to be a battle between ideologies in the Conservative party.
Fareham was once "my" constituency, back in 1986 I think.
The outcome of the poll will be known tonight.
Suella Braverman may lose her seat tonight because of boundary changes to be introduced before the next election; essentially she and Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) both want to contest the new seat of Fareham and Waterlooville. The voters here are local Conservative members. In February The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...to-find-safe-seat-for-next-election-dfc0l7bvk) said
so it would appear to be a battle between ideologies in the Conservative party.
Fareham was once "my" constituency, back in 1986 I think.
The outcome of the poll will be known tonight.
I read a few days ago that external pressure was being put on the members of Fareham and Waterlooville. I cannot find it but I have found an article in Conservative Home https://conservativehome.com/2023/0...l-champion-that-some-members-are-looking-for/ which suggests that Braverman could also consider neighbouring Hamble Valley, which is where 45% of her former constituency is going.
I find the Express piece interesting, that she didn't have links with members. She has been the MP for almost 8 years, she had a minor ministerial role during part of 2018. then for the past three years. Admittedly, since she became Attorney-General then Home Secretary it would have been tough, but plenty of time earlier to establish herself. MPs need to remember that they are constituency MPs, that is the job. If they don't want to do it, then don't stand!
Suella Braverman may lose her seat tonight because of boundary changes to be introduced before the next election; essentially she and Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) both want to contest the new seat of Fareham and Waterlooville. The voters here are local Conservative members. In February The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...to-find-safe-seat-for-next-election-dfc0l7bvk) said
so it would appear to be a battle between ideologies in the Conservative party.
Fareham was once "my" constituency, back in 1986 I think.
The outcome of the poll will be known tonight.
I don't know Flick Drummond (apart from also being an ex-MP for Portsmouth South), but as far as I'm concerned, it's (almost) Anyone But Braverman. (Well, maybe not Lee Anderson, or Daniel Kawczynski, but you know what I mean...)
Having said that, isn't there a new Hedge End constituency being created over the other side of the Hamble? Presumably the one who doesn't get the new Fareham and Waterlooville seat could contest that - though, as an area where the Lib Dems frequently do well, I suspect it's not quite as safe Tory as the existing Fareham or Meon Valley seats.
(EDIT: I see that @Typhoon has said basically the same thing - sorry).
Having said that, isn't there a new Hedge End constituency being created over the other side of the Hamble? Presumably the one who doesn't get the new Fareham and Waterlooville seat could contest that - though, as an area where the Lib Dems frequently do well, I suspect it's not quite as safe Tory as the existing Fareham or Meon Valley seats.
I suspect you know why they are keen to avoid it. There is a fair amount of the old Eastleigh constituency.
Eastleigh council is currently Liberal Democrate - 34 councillors, Independent - 4 councillors, Conservative - 1 councillor. At the most recent council elections, the Conservatives polled 20% of the vote.
If Braverman contested it, it would make sense for Labour to make a token effort only with the expectation that the defeat of a major cabinet member would outscore a miserable performance by Labour.
Eastleigh council is currently Liberal Democrate - 34 councillors, Independent - 4 councillors, Conservative - 1 councillor. At the most recent council elections, the Conservatives polled 20% of the vote.
If Braverman contested it, it would make sense for Labour to make a token effort only with the expectation that the defeat of a major cabinet member would outscore a miserable performance by Labour.
It's amazing, given those stats, that Eastleigh constituency itself has been fairly comfortably Tory in the past three elections. Corbynphobia could explain it in 2019, perhaps, but not so sure about 2015.
It's amazing, given those stats, that Eastleigh constituency itself has been fairly comfortably Tory in the past three elections. Corbynphobia could explain it in 2019, perhaps, but not so sure about 2015.
I'm guessing from the electoral history that are possibly quite a few people there who tend to vote Tory in national elections and LibDem in local elections. That kind of voting pattern would make sense for someone whose politics are moderately right wing but who values the tendency of the LibDems to be extremely active on local issues.
Scott Benton caught in a sting offering ministerial access and to leak the government white paper on gambling reform prior to its publication
He has a long history of taking hospitality from the gambling industry
Benton is a truly odious character, as anyone who came into contact with him in his previous life as leader of the Tory group on Calderdale council will attest.
To paraphrase Kevin Keegan, I would love it, bloody love it, if this is the beginning of his downfall
And the ERG and DUP would very much beg to differ, having examined what the deal actually says.
