Anything Political

[Brew 5,418]

49 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I need more evidence. 

 

 

 

I can't speak from recent experience but 20+ years ago when we first started seeing each other  a family across the road (in Strelley) terrorised her and most of the street. The wife was a fat,fearsome, mostly toothless, harridan and the yob of a husband who 'worked the doors' at night for cash in hand quite openly boasted they were entitled to their benefits. Dee, bless her soul, regularly handed over money, ostensibly because the kids where going to school hungry, in reality for the mothers cigarettes..... long story of burglary and intimidation before  she finally had enough and we became a permanent item at mine. I'm assured in the years previous not one them had 'proper' job.

 

There is a  tale to tell of myself and two police officers... but not today.

 

The eldest boy died in a stolen car and to be honest, though it seems churlish to say it now, at the time I found it difficult to feel any sympathy.

 

All this to illustrate that the real tragedy is the number of genuine, decent people who through the actions of one family were tarred with the same brush as 'dole wallahs', 'benefits scroungers' and worse.

[DJ360 6,730]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

All this to illustrate that the real tragedy is the number of genuine, decent people who through the actions of one family were tarred with the same brush as 'dole wallahs', 'benefits scroungers' and worse.

 

Precisely.  Although your experience was undoubtedly unpleasant, it was , I believe, pretty rare.

 

Incidentaly, two young lads who persisted in stealing lead from roofs , including my Brother's, were I believe killed when their stolen car crashed into a haystack and caught fire.  Again..it is difficult to sympathise.. but I suppose I should wonder what circumstances made them do the things that led to their deaths.

I still recall almost foaming at the mouth in anger when the Daily Mail did a feature on that murdering scumbag Philpott, who killed all of his kids in Derby...and stated 'there are thousands like him'.  I was raging and made several complaints to the press commission or whatever. All I got back were platitudes and bullshit.. which should warn anybody not to trust a word they read in the press, especially rags like the Mail.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

On a lighter note.. I was out in the car early evening and heard Billy Bragg, among others, being interviewed on a prog on BBC4, hosted by a bloke whose name I forget.

 

Bragg described his politics as 'The Politics of Empathy'.  I suspect there's room for a lot more of that.

 

Billy Bragg also described the use of 'Political Correctness' and 'Snowflake'..as 'Deflections', designed to allow the user to avoid confronting the REAL issue.

No mug that Billy Bragg....

[DJ360 6,730]

So, Owen Patterson eh?  So bloody guilty that the Tories voted to change Parliamentary scrutiny to save him from the chop..and also fend off scrutiny of the many other Tory crooks, including Johnson himself.  I'm not being hysterical here.. the supremacy of Parliament, and the very existence of Democracy is threatened by these crooks.

 

This from my other favourite site:

 

 

Quote

 

Tony L said: ↑

Just another step on a clearly defined trajectory, e.g. the illegal prorogation of parliament, today’s clearly corrupt rewrite of parliamentary standards, Johnson lying to the Queen (along with everyone else), the blatant multi-£bn corruption and fraud throughout the covid 19 pandemic, breaking international law over Brexit, breaking international law regarding refugee safety, breaking international law over the GFA, burying/absolving war crimes, ramping up state snooping, eroding civil rights, ramping up nationalism, xenophobia, clamping down on protest with police state powers, trying to seize control of the media etc etc etc. It is a near endless list.

Tory voters really need to wake the hell up and realise exactly what they are enabling. This is not a ‘conservative party’ at all. It is now an entirely different thing.

 

 

As I read this thread, it took until Tony's post above before anyone properly assigned this latest shit show, not just to typical Tory greed and self interest, but to a much more insidious long term process. That process started with Johnson smarting from being told in no uncertain terms, by the Judiciary, by Parliament and by many in his own party, that he simply could not dictate to all and sundry from a position of parliamentary minority. That was the point when the spoilt selfish arse decided that he would, given the opportunity, change the Law, and Parliament, to suit himself. This was declared, hidden in plain sight, in the Tory manifesto.. and they have been quietly working on it since.

This sickening episode, as bad as it is, is just another step in Johnson and Co's plan to undermine the supremacy of Parliament, the democratic process, and an INDEPENDENT judiciary.

Be under no illusion.. they have declared war on the British people, and as such they now have to win or see themselves out of office, and possibly even in gaol. Do not expect any quarter from amoral shits like Johnson, Rees-Mogg and their familiars. These really are dangerous times.

 

Ignore what they say.. Watch what they do..

Mullardman, 6 minutes ago Edit Delete Report

#64 + Quote Reply

[DJ360 6,730]

On 10/8/2021 at 9:51 AM, philmayfield said:

It seems to run in families. The parents don’t pass on the work ethic to the children. There’s a large sub-culture in this country who live off the system and top it up with the proceeds of crime and growing cannabis in the loft - amongst other things.

 

Phil..I am not for one moment excusing the behaviour of those you describe..  It would however be instructive to compare that 'large sub culture', with the 'sub culture' at the other end of the socio economic spectrum, who cheerfully, and blatantly, trade Parliamentary Privelege, for Cash and Influence. If you looked at say, Johnny Scumbag..trading a bit of weed to pay for food and rent..and compared him to Tarquin Moneybags, an already extremely wealthy sleaze merchant, looking to grab a few more millions by manipulating the political system to his own ends...  which one would you find most morally repellent?

Be honest!

[Brew 5,418]

When I read the news about this I expected a tirade of invective against the Tories and took to reminiscing about sleaze in previous Labour governments. There are the obvious ones but sadly memory is failing me at an ever increasing rate so took to Wiki...

Good grief and other less polite expressions spring to mind and the main parties are dipping in the same pot of tar.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Lindsay Hoyle is something of a nonentity and  raised no objection, I doubt Bercow would have given it such an easy ride. Incidentally not all Labour MP's voted against it.

 

Looking on the bright side at least it is possible to rescind the law when Johnson et al are out on their ears though I seriously doubt Labour will do so. They're much more likely to take advantage and blame the Tories when they hide behind the amendment.

Tony Blair created more criminal offences during his time in office than any government in history - 1034 laws giving the right to enter private property alone!

He tried to control the population to his advantage just as Johnson is doing now, he just went about it in  a different way.

 

We can change the law but sadly we cannot give the lost lives and limbs back to those who lost them in Blair's 5 illegal wars... Was morally repellent mentioned?

 

Downplaying Johnny Scumbags drug dealing as "a bit of weed" for food etc. is an insult to the millions who, with difficulty I grant you, manage without ruining lives peddling their filth.

[DJ360 6,730]

Well Jim, you might think it is irrelevant now since Johnson and Co have backed down..for now. But I for one do not for a minute think this is the end of it, because Johnson, and many in his gang are desperate to avoid future scrutiny, and you can be sure they will continue to try to change the rules on lobbying, and in many other areas to protect themselves.  I keep saying this, and it keeps falling on deaf ears.. Johnson has deliberately set out to weaken Parliament, to weaken the Judiciary and to weaken infra Parliamentary scrutiny of Government actions. It is in his manifesto!!

 

The above is different to old style sleaze, because Johnson is actually trying to pretty much remove all constraints, and all sanctions, when they apply to himself and his cronies. He is, in short, setting himself and his pals above both Parliament, and the Law. This is a very dangerous move and has to be stopped.

 

If you want to see it all superbly summed up, just watch Caroline Lucas' opening statement on tonight's Question Time.

 

I'm sorry, but invoking decades old stuff about Blair is simply conflating two entirely different sets of actions. If you are right about Blair, he was legislating to try to limit general crime..  Remember?  'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes' etc.  We can argue from now until Christmas about whether his actions were 'a good thing', but the crucial thing that they were not, was any sort of attempt to change the centuries old principle that Parliament has the right to scrutinise the actions of both individual members, and Governments.  This is the very cornerstone of our Democracy and Johnson is ignoring it, with impunity. This HAS to stop, and even many in his own party recognise this, which is why they had to be 'whipped' to support his power grab attempt yesterday.

 

20 hours ago, Brew said:

Downplaying Johnny Scumbags drug dealing as "a bit of weed" for food etc. is an insult to the millions who, with difficulty I grant you, manage without ruining lives peddling their filth.

 

OK, I used a bad example... although I think you'll find that Cannabis use is pretty much as ubiquitous as alcohol and nicotine these days and whilst there are obviously serious gangsters at the top of the supply chain, there is also pretty much insatiable demand at the bottom..so that the concept of 'pushing', particularly where Cannabis is concerned.. is flawed.

 

But whatever.. if we take the emotive issue of illicit drugs out of the equation, and re-design the proposition..

 

Johnny Poorboy, who has moderate learning difficulties and has never been in trouble with the law before.. has lost his job due to Covid and had his already meagre benefits reduced by £20 per week.  He risks a bit of shoplifting, because he is desperate to feed his children.

Contrast that with ..say..a Politician who uses his access and influence to lobby on behalf of a company, which pays him £100000 per year, on top of his MP's salary, for some vague work described as 'Business Adviser', or 'Non Executive Board Member'.

Where do you assign 'morality', in that scenario?

 

Put it more bluntly.  If I steal from a bank, even without using force of arms.. you can absolutely guarantee that I will go to gaol for a very long time.  This is basically the way that 'the Establishment', and vested interests, have used the law, for centuries, to protect and maintain their privelege. 

However.. If a Bank steals from an individual, or indeed a country.. which is effectively what happened in 2008. you can guarantee that nobody will go to Gaol and in all likelihood nobody will even be sanctioned, fined, or required to pay back anything.  It is we, the peasants who will repay, just as we did during austerity, and will do similarly for Covid in the future.

 

Can you justify that?

 

[Brew 5,418]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I keep saying this, and it keeps falling on deaf ears.. Johnson has deliberately set out to weaken Parliament, to weaken the Judiciary and to weaken infra Parliamentary scrutiny of Government actions. It is in his manifesto!!

 

I agree and totally accept what you say and have said so on more than one occasion.

 

Quoting decades old stuff about Blair is simply an example that serious misuse of power is not the sole prerogative of the Tories and I'm of the opinion time does not lessen the relevance.

More recent scandals if you prefer, at least one resulting in a custodial sentence include; Alex Salmond (SNP), Eric Joyce (Labour) and Matt Hancock (Cons) plus others. It really is across the board.

 

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

OK, I used a bad example.

 

Indeed but we can both quote ad infinitum imaginary examples of good and bad, right and wrong, but to what end? Quite why you imagine someone with moderate learning difficulties adds weight to your argument I find hard to follow.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Can you justify that?

 

 

The short answer to your question is no, I can't justify any abuse of power or corruption  by anyone from the highest to the lowest.

Sadly wrongdoing will always be with us, no one is perfect and even some quite recent popes have had a murky past.

[DJ360 6,730]

11 hours ago, Brew said:

I agree and totally accept what you say and have said so on more than one occasion.

 

That's good.

 

11 hours ago, Brew said:

 

Quoting decades old stuff about Blair is simply an example that serious misuse of power is not the sole prerogative of the Tories and I'm of the opinion time does not lessen the relevance.

More recent scandals if you prefer, at least one resulting in a custodial sentence include; Alex Salmond (SNP), Eric Joyce (Labour) and Matt Hancock (Cons) plus others. It really is across the board.

 

Well yes.. and again no..because none of those you mention, even as far as I know, Blair, seriously attempted to change the power relationship between themselves and the Law, or themselves and the mechanisms for examining standards in the operation of Govt., or of Parliament.

 

Of course it is true that there have been examples of bad behaviour across all parties, but again, they were dealt with by the existing systems at the time and nobody attempted to change things to get one of their buddies 'off the hook' after the fact... or so that they themselves would be protected from future investigation and sanction. Furthermore, none of them tried to use a single whipped Parliamentary vote, in order to set up a system of their own One Party design, and with a built in majority favouring themselves.  That is exactly what Johnson tried to force through on Wednesday, in a move which belonged more to the murky corridors of the Kremlin, or the Great Hall of the People.

 

In any event, the backlash, in both Parliament (including from Tory MPs) and in the media, was enought to force a climb down.  More sigificantly in my view, Rees-Mogg, was forced to state in Parliament, and therefore for the record in Hansard, that any changes should be agreed on a cross party basis, and not applied retrospectively. However, I just do not believe that this is the end of the matter. Johnson has lied and cheated and used his Parliamentary advantage in so many openly corrupt ways, that he will still be desperately looking for ways to avoid a 'reckoning'..so watch this space.

 

A couple of other points of interest.  Even though the Daily Mail condemned Wednesday's chicanery, they could not bring themselves to obviously blame the Tories..instead headlining it as 'Shameless MPs Sink Back Into Sleaze'. This is significant, because the Mail likes to propagate the 'They're all bent' meme.

 

Below is the link to Parliament.tv and Labour's Chris Bryant's excellent speech, demolishing Johnson and Co's argument.

 

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/be47898e-2937-495e-a050-1cb40148deeb?in=15:15:30

 

 

There is an awful lot more to go at here, including the iffy relationships between Dido Harding, her husband 'Penrose..who is apparently the Govt. 'anti corruption Tsar' (You couldnt make this stuff up..), Randox and many other companies/individuals with their snouts in the trough.

But I'll leave that for another day.

I'll come back on the 'comparative justice' theme later.

[Brew 5,418]

Most of that Col is preaching to the choir but the point about Blair is that he rode roughshod over both the largest parliamentary rebellion and the greatest street protests against any UK government, ever.

He didn't need to change the democratic process he just went ahead and did as he pleased. He controlled the timing of debates and who participated, excluded some of the cabinet from key discussions and made many decisions alone. He and Johnson sought the same end using different mechanisms.

 

At least in this instance common sense had prevailed and the government has backed down, for how long I don't know.

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

4 hours ago, Brew said:

Most of that Col is preaching to the choir but the point about Blair is that he rode roughshod over both the largest parliamentary rebellion and the greatest street protests against any UK government, ever.

 

That is true, and I've never quite understood why. It has something to do ith his 'Presidential' style, which seems to have gone to his head.  It's a pity because up to that point he was doing pretty well.

[DJ360 6,730]

Interesting..

 

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/jacob-rees-mogg-role-in-owen-paterson-scandal/

[Brew 5,418]

I don't deny the bones of it but it's overly long and far from a neutral, balanced piece of political analysis -  it's a blatant character assassination of Rees-Mogg.

I wonder if he's paid by the word or column inch? there are so many specious comments I'm surprised there's no accusation of bed-wetting.

[DJ360 6,730]

I disagree.  Rees-Mogg is clearly a very dangerous character.  He is hugely wealthy yet he chooses to spend his time grubbing about in the murkier depths of the UK Political far right.  I also think you need to spell out which comments you find truly 'specious'.

 

What is his motivation? 

 

His wealth per se is not a problem for me..I've long stated that I'm not against wealth if honestly acquired, and I have no evidence that Rees-Mogg is any less honest than others in that regard.

But.. he is clearly mired in the whole business of Brexit, he was very close to Brexit, and a prominent member of the cynically tiled 'European Research Group'. He actually thinks Nigel Farage is 'a decent chap', etc.etc., and wanted UKIP to merge with the Tories, which they have effectively done anyway.

He's a nasty piece of work in my book..one who likes to play up to his 'gawky toff' image, but quietly and cynically nasty nonetheless.

 

And of course the article is a character assassination..but no less true for all that.  I seem to recal that character assassinations of Corbyn were 'de rigeur' in the UK press a while back.  Nobody was complaining then. 

 

For me, the best line is the last...

 

Quote

If he wants to regain a semblance of credibility, Johnson should cut ties with them – starting with Jacob Rees-Mogg.

 

Seriously?  Anyone who thinks that Johnson can recover a shred of any credibility, which he never had in the first place, by any such simple device, is seriously short on understanding of UK politics..and of Johnson's appalling character and record.

 

[catfan 14,793]

I see that vile Labour MP Claudia Webb was extremely lucky not to get a custodial prison sentence for her threat to throw acid over a love rival.

Mind you playing the race card worked for her after her comment about being tried in a white court.

To think such an odious woman is a Labour MP.

[Cliff Ton 10,467]

It's not all bad news. Webbe is no longer a Labour MP. She has been expelled by Labour and is now technically an independent MP. Depending on whether she launches an appeal, there may be a by-election.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/claudia-webbe-mp-handed-suspended-sentence-after-threatening-partners-female-friend-with-acid-12458966

 

 

[Brew 5,418]

13 hours ago, DJ360 said:

His wealth per se is not a problem for me..I've long stated that I'm not against wealth if honestly acquired, and I have no evidence that Rees-Mogg is any less honest than others in that regard.

But.. he is clearly mired in the whole business of Brexit, he was very close to Brexit, and a prominent member of the cynically tiled 'European Research Group'. He actually thinks Nigel Farage is 'a decent chap', etc.etc., and wanted UKIP to merge with the Tories, which they have effectively done anyway.

He's a nasty piece of work in my book..one who likes to play up to his 'gawky toff' image, but quietly and cynically nasty nonetheless.

 

 

"In your book Col"... 

 

All the above states is that you simply disagree with his opinions and that you really dislike his laconic style. As for Farage there must many that think he is OK, who I don't know but  someone must.

 

You have said many times you don't have a problem with wealth yet clearly you give the opposite impression by constantly bringing it  into this and previous debates, if it's not a problem why mention it? especially when there is no reason to suspect it was gained by anything other than legal means.

 

True he is a Brexiteer, they won and history will tell right or wrong but we must live it

 

13 hours ago, DJ360 said:

And of course the article is a character assassination..but no less true for all that.  I seem to recal that character assassinations of Corbyn were 'de rigeur' in the UK press a while back.  Nobody was complaining then. 

 

Though I can't recall specific instances from memory the attacks on Corbyn were based on his support for fringe factions and his stated policies and promises should he gain office. I can't recall any criticising the fact he is a millionaire, that he eats beans from the tin and his brother, though a meteorologist, denies climate change.

 

The attack on RM (which happily drags his father in), seems mainly rumour and conjecture, denigration by innuendo, is there any real evidence?

He comes across to me as 'oh so superior' when he lolls on the front bench and his style of speech is irritating when he talks down to people, but does that make him "nasty or "Incompetence, dissembling, trickery" as per the article?

[DJ360 6,730]

It does in my book.  And for the record he spent a fair bit of today's Parliamentary debate smirking.

Also, though it is irrelevant..the bloke has an estimated 50-150 million quid fortune yet seems to always have his posh suit covered in dandruff.... Inexcusable!!!

 

On 11/7/2021 at 1:45 PM, Brew said:

Though I can't recall specific instances from memory the attacks on Corbyn were based on his support for fringe factions and his stated policies and promises should he gain office. I can't recall any criticising the fact he is a millionaire, that he eats beans from the tin and his brother, though a meteorologist, denies climate change.

 

 

Your memory really is slipping Jim.  He was accused of supporting terrorism, when he repeatedly and consistently condemned all forms of violence.  He was accused of anti-semitism, because he criticised Israeli policy.  And his policies were no further left than the Tories in pre-Thatcher days.

 

The plain fact is that he initially gained such a groundswell of popular support that the Tories, other right wing political elements and the entire press/media from ultra right through to elements of the BBC, were terrified he might actually unseat the Tories and so they portrayed him as some sort of bomb throwing revolutionary and much of the electorate fell for it.

 

 In the end he turned out to be a poor and indecisive leader, but I would still have preferred Labour under him, to the present corrupt thieving Tories under Johnson, or any of his crooked bunch.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 11/7/2021 at 7:53 AM, catfan said:

To think such an odious woman is a Labour MP.

 

There are rotten apples in all parties..but the Tories have made it into an art form.

[Brew 5,418]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

And for the record he spent a fair bit of today's Parliamentary debate smirking.

 

An argument not to your usual standard Col! Hopefully you mean it in a jocular way and not yah boo...

Is it not a matter of opinion, was he smirking or just mildly amused at the proceedings? I really don't think facial expressions are cause to condemn a man

 

My memory is not slipping as much as I thought Col, I used the term 'fringe factions' to cover the things you mention, I thought you'd recognise it as such.

 

Moving on, Corbyn condemning all forms of violence and not sympathising with terror groups rings about as true as Johnson or Cummings saying they always tell the truth. Why should we believe Corbyn anymore than any other politician? seems we accept that with which we agree and disbelieve that which we don't - simply saying something doesn't make it so.

 

46 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

And his policies were no further left than the Tories in pre-Thatcher days.

 

Back to poor memory recall because I totally don't recognise that scenario. In the years prior to MT the previous PM's were Callaghan, Wilson, Heath, Wilson...  Three Labour and only one Conservative government in the fifteen years prior! Which perhaps explains why Labour lost 50 seats to give her victory and a virtually unassailable majority.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

but I would still have preferred Labour under him,

 

Something we will never know for certain, personally I doubt it.

[DJ360 6,730]

22 hours ago, Brew said:

  On 11/9/2021 at 12:22 AM, DJ360 said:

but I would still have preferred Labour under him,

 

That's a misleading quote JIm.  I said:

 

On 11/9/2021 at 12:22 AM, DJ360 said:

 In the end he turned out to be a poor and indecisive leader, but I would still have preferred Labour under him, to the present corrupt thieving Tories under Johnson, or any of his crooked bunch.

 

Leaving aside Corbyn's failings as an orator and leader, I'd sooner have him, or practically anybody from Labour/Green..or even LibDems.. than that lying thieving incompetent coward Johnson, or any of the spivs which surround him.

 

How anyone cannot see the direction of travel for democracy, common decency and the prospects for ordinary citizens of the UK  under this bunch of crooks..is beyond me. 

[Brew 5,418]

You know my views on Johnson but I'm reluctant to cast aspersions about thievery and crookery without a conviction to back it up.

 

What I can say is that of the seven who were convicted and went to prison for fiddling their expenses five were Labour.

 

Funny old world innit?  

[DJ360 6,730]

9 hours ago, Brew said:

What I can say is that of the seven who were convicted and went to prison for fiddling their expenses five were Labour.

 

True enough, and whilst I cannot condone fraud by anybody, the whole lot amounts to less than £100000 and relates to matters more than a decade old, for which some were punished, and hopefully the rest learned lessons.

 

However, you know well that what I am saying about the Tories is not principally about the relatively minor issue of allowable expenses. 

 

They are allowing, fostering, engaging in and even attempting to justify wholesale cronyism, illegal lobbying etc., etc. Paterson alone has 'trousered'  400% more than the whole 'expenses scandal' amounted to, and he's just the one (so far) that has been caught out.  Add to this that the Tories actually tried to rescue him by retrospectively changing the rules..based on specious arguments and dishonest reporting of the process Paterson was actually subjected to, and you have an obvious case of attempted fraud, to cover up an open and shut case of illegal lobbying. 

 

It is also entirely reasonable and logical to conclude that Johnson was behind the attempt, because it is well known that he is also subject to numerous investigations for improper use of public funds etc. Plus of course all of the evidence which points to meetings between Johnson, and others to 'cook up' their plan. And whatever the fine detail,Johnson is supposed to be Prime Minister and should have been 'across' the whole of this fiasco.

And to put the Tin Hat on it.. the Tory Govt. then has the brass neck to stand up and apologise for a 'mistake'.  The only mistake was them thinking they could get away with such an obvious piece of chicanery.

 

Numerous contracts have been dished out especially in relation to Covid, with no tendering and little 'come back' for failure.  In most cases there are obvious links to Tory politicians. You cannot honestly deny that this is blatantly the case. I'm afraid that the defence of 'it was an emergency', is unnaccepteble on many counts. 

1. They were far quicker to hand out public money to their buddies and fellow travellers, than they were to help many members of society, to initiate proper lockdowns etc..not to mention their shameful neglect of both the safety, and welfare of NHS staff.

2. They are known to have ignored tenders and proposals from numerous competent companies, whilst favouring the likes of Harding.

3. By strange coincidence, John Penrose MP, who just happens to be both the Tory's 'Anti Corruption Tsar'  and the husband of Dido Harding, was one of the most vocal in claiming that Free School Meals over the Summer were 'wrong', whilst his wife was cleaning up by failing to deliver a working Test and Trace system at a cost of £Billions.

Need I go on?

[Rob.L 1,090]

And then there’s this, from Private Eye.

 

“The company in charge of preparing the “knowledge management system in preparation for the public inquiry” into Test & Trace failings?
 

Deloitte, the very consultants who got hundreds of millions in contracts to, er, run Test & Trace.”

[Brew 5,418]

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

However, you know well that what I am saying about the Tories is not principally about the relatively minor issue of allowable expenses. 

 

I accept and have some sympathy for your views but a pound or a penny theft is theft and the 'relatively minor issue' saw them go to prison, maybe it's a little more than a 'minor issue' and we should not downplay it.

Principles do not have a price tag so the amount Paterson 'trousered' is irrelevant, betrayal of trust cannot and should not be measured in monetary terms.

 

I'm with you that the ludicrous attempts to overturn what was in essence a very mild punishment is a scandal. Had he taken his medicine it would all be over and done with now and he could continue charging his patrons over £500 per hour. Such is his greed and arrogance he thought he knew better and is now out on his ear - quite right too.

 

On the same note I wonder what specialist knowledge Cox can impart that's worth well over a £1000 an hour?

 

Personally I'm coming round to the idea of zero second jobs for MP's, they are more than adequately rewarded for doing a job that  has no obligation to actually attend parliament if they decide not to.

 

5 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Numerous contracts have been dished out especially in relation to Covid, with no tendering and little 'come back' for failure. 

 

We've been over this before and it's easy to throw stones now with hindsight but at the time I didn't and still don't blame anyone for hitting the panic button and short-circuiting the system to get things done. Follow the rules and we would still be in the discussion stage. HS2 was started in 2009 and still not fully agreed upon.

Note also none of the so called 'competent companies' (who are they?),  have issued any legal challenges alleging wrong doing in the tendering process.

In something so massive to expect perfection is naive, sure there were failures and there will no doubt be more to come but on balance we did as well as most and better than some.

 

Quite how Dido Harding, who holds an MBA, got everything she touches so spectacularly wrong is beyond me. It's also a worry that she's married to a staunch advocate for scrapping the NHS.