I'd say the PM lying about receiving money is damaging, yes. There's a reason there's rules about accepting gifts etc for people with public functions (and generally in private companies as well).
I'd say the PM lying about receiving money is damaging, yes. There's a reason there's rules about accepting gifts etc for people with public functions (and generally in private companies as well).
Last edited by Flixy; 04-29-2021 at 04:01 PM. Reason: Autocorrect
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Oh, don't do that "all politicians lie so Johnson's alright be me, LOL" thing. It's the lamest excuse in the book used by people as a last resort when their partisan heroes are caught. I can't imagine it working on a five year old.Originally Posted by RandBlade
It might be damaging. It depends who paid for the refurbishment. We should investigate and find out, because these people work -for- us. If somebody -did- give Johnson some cash, as long as it's within the rules and there's no clear links to said person receiving some benefit - it's all good, it's not damaging at all and some people will look a bit silly.
Your standards for public office are so incredibly low, it's worrying that you're allowed to be a member of a political party.
Well we have an election in seven days time so it will be interesting to see how damaging its been.
The baseline should be that Labour should make gains from the Tories, since the last time these local elections were held was 2017 when the Tories were 20+ points in the lead, and we're currently only ~10 points in the lead. But we'll see, maybe Boris paying for wallpapers will see Keir Starmer become Britain's preferred PM?
As I've said recently, Johnson is untouchable. It won't be damaging in terms of votes at all. Even if Putin himself gave Johnson the cash, or beit some Jewelry company that got awarded PPE contracts, he'd still smash it in the polls. You have nothing to worry about.
Come on the first part was clearly a joke. No five year olds necessary.
As for an investigation, yes there is one going on to double-check the rules were followed and if any further declarations are necessary they'll be made. That was already confirmed before PMQs. Which makes banging on about it all the more bizarre, there's actual issues that affect people that could be discussed instead of wallpaper invoicing which an investigation is happening into already.
It's not bizarre to try and get some answers to an issue like this in Hansard.
To ask a question once perhaps, that's what was done with the silly piled high comment that got answered "No".
A week before elections, to ask five times in a row about wallpaper that the taxpayers didn't pay for. Yes that's pretty unusual. I haven't done it yet but I bet that if you check Hansard the week before prior elections you wouldn't get five questions in a row about something like wallpaper privately paid for.
Worth remembering that when Tony Blair was PM for context, he got a similar flat wallpapered at a cost of £650,000 which was billed to the taxpayers: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm
I take it you're referring to this?
I don't think he lost his temper; I believe it was a performance—similar to other performative displays of feigned anger from conservatives who've been caught fucking around eg. in the US (Kavanaugh, Graham, etc). It's a simple innovation that appears to play well with the recently activated authoritarians among the conservative base.
It's genuinely embarrassing that they refuse to address the issue of the undeclared loan; it gives the impression that their only guiding principle is "what can we get away with?" rather than any higher standards of integrity in public office. Under Blair, an undeclared loan famously led to the resignation of two MPs. Irvine's comically lavish refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's offices at the taxpayer's expense rightly and understandably sparked a massive scandal, which saw Irvine grilled by a Parliamentary committee. That is how it should be. Johnson isn't being criticized for spending £30k of the taxpayer's money on refurbishing the flat; he isn't even being criticized for the classist comments attributed to Symonds. He's being criticized for not declaring a large loan from a Tory donor, as well as for responding to the justified criticism in a Trumpian manner that furthers the ongoing erosion of important norms of integrity in politics. There is no principled conservatism in the UK right now—there's just a bunch of chancers looking out for their own asses, trying to see how much graft and vandalism they can get away with. It's so incredibly undignified that it genuinely makes me sad for all your sakes. I reckon you share some of that sadness, if your disappointed tone is anything to go by.
Last edited by Aimless; 04-29-2021 at 06:26 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What absolute bollocks.
It does sadden me, yes, and I agree with your assessment of the current Tory party. Johnson has done so much damage but it's not just about him. So many in the party have enabled him, that, if I were going to be living a long life, I couldn't see myself voting for them again for a very, very long time.I take it you're referring to this?
I don't think he lost his temper; I believe it was a performance—similar to other performative displays of feigned anger from conservatives who've been caught fucking around eg. in the US (Kavanaugh, Graham, etc). It's a simple innovation that appears to play well with the recently activated authoritarians among the conservative base.
It's genuinely embarrassing that they refuse to address the issue of the undeclared loan; it gives the impression that their only guiding principle is "what can we get away with?" rather than any higher standards of integrity in public office. Under Blair, an undeclared loan famously led to the resignation of two MPs. Irvine's comically lavish refurbishment of the Lord Chancellor's offices at the taxpayer's expense rightly and understandably sparked a massive scandal, which saw Irvine grilled by a Parliamentary committee. That is how it should be. Johnson isn't being criticized for spending £30k of the taxpayer's money on refurbishing the flat; he isn't even being criticized for the classist comments attributed to Symonds. He's being criticized for not declaring a large loan from a Tory donor, as well as for responding to the justified criticism in a Trumpian manner that furthers the ongoing erosion of important norms of integrity in politics. There is no principled conservatism in the UK right now—there's just a bunch of chancers looking out for their own asses, trying to see how much graft and vandalism they can get away with. It's so incredibly undignified that it genuinely makes me sad for all your sakes. I reckon you share some of that sadness, if your disappointed tone is anything to go by.
For some people, this cabinet could be found lying, cheating and breaking laws and it doesn't matter. What matters most is that Labour don't get into power for a few years. But honestly, would it really be that bad? Is it really worth enabling such rancid behaviour from the people we want as role models to our children?
The country's gone nuts.
In fact, not an anonymous person, the person in question is one David Ellis Brownlow (known aliases include "Lord Brownlow", "Baron Brownlow" and "Lord Baron Brownlow of Shurlock Row"), one of the biggest Tory party donors that we know about.
And you'll never guess what his companies are involved with, unless you guessed "public sector contracts".
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Oh yes I saw that being spread by far-left types on Twitter yesterday, alleging 'sleaze' because allegedly it was him. And allegedly he's received public sector contracts, all dating from when Theresa May was PM, not Boris. Also he was a donor to such illuminaries as: Theresa May's constituency office and the anti-Brexit Stronger In campaign. That would be the Stronger In campaign that I believe you supported, and Boris opposed. He was made a Lord by Theresa May as part of her resignation list. https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-boris-johnson
Is that the same person you're talking about?
It's difficult to break the cycle of voluntary self-debasement once it gets started. Unprincipled Trumpian/Johnsonite behaviour is so deeply entrenched among the core of safe conservative MPs with long careers ahead of them—as well as among the coming crops of young Tories who've only had these rotten role models to look up to—that even GE losses wouldn't be enough to trigger a realignment (see also GOP doubling down on Trumpism after his defeat). From a purely selfish perspective, this sort of behavior is very advantageous to those who embrace it, with few downsides (even if you get busted). On top of that, there are all the dysfunctional things ordinary people are wont to do to cope with the shame of knowing they sacrificed what little respectability they may have enjoyed in order to defend a dangerously incompetent, racist liar and cheat; it might not even be about opposing Labour's politics anymore. England is looking at a generational struggle to right the ship.
Jfc when will you leftists get it into your thick skulls that buying a Prime Minister is a legitimate business investment—even if he happens to be an otherwise useless wanker?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Nah, most of those fuckers are prepared to run the country solely in the interests of the rich on, as it were, a pro-bono basis, paying for one is a mugs game. Especially one noted for going back on his word constantly.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Okay tbf it may be more about the power and the humiliation, and he did get his money back after all.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I wonder whether it's possible for any of the three Investigations into what happened to actually get to the bottom of what happened. If somebody did give Johnson the money, can they go as far as checking bank accounts? I also assume Johnson is pretty experienced and would cover his tracks well. I expect a "we found no evidence of wrong doing" type thing.
Murky though things may seem right now, the most proximal steps shouldn't be difficult to follow. Brownlow has confirmed the payments to CCHQ, and there does not seem to be any doubt that CCHQ paid for part of Johnson's refurbishment—prior to receiving the payments from Brownlow. CCHQ is said to have been repaid by Johnson. So, afaict, what we know without any major investigation is that the money trail looks like this (not in chronological order): CCHQ —> Johnson (in practice) —> CCHQ <— Brownlow. From Brownlow's perspective, it's just two unremarkable donations—although the greater part of his donation was intended for the refurbishment/renovation, and that part has not been declared, by neither the Conservative Party nor by Johnson.
It honestly does look incredibly clownish; all of this nonsense could've been avoided if Johnson's & Symonds's appetites hadn't been larger than their wallet, and/or if Johnson had just handled it like a normal person—ie. by paying for the whole endeavour with his own money + a regular (and properly declared) loan. I get the feeling people involved with CCHQ are somewhat more culpable than Johnson, but I dunno. I guess the difficult parts for investigators will be to sort out who knew what when, when the payments were made and how, and (if people do their jobs) why the PM couldn't/wouldn't pay upfront but was able to do so only a few months later.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Your obsession over pathetic minutae when it comes to decorations not charged to the taxpayer is really bizarre, especially when you contrast it with charging £650,000 on wallpaper for one residence and billing it to the taxpayer and suggesting that's a better way to handle it. Johnson could have simply charged this to the taxpayer, but he chose not to do so.
Finally its worth noting of course that the updated register of interests for this period hasn't even been published yet, and its already been confirmed that any declarations that need to be made will be made in due course and published in the updated register when it is published. So really much ado about nothing.
Meanwhile . . .
Twitter Link
Jesus, you're actually defending graft? You really are a Trumpster.
Serious question: What exactly would BlowJob have to do to finally get you to admit that he has done something bad? Shoot someone?
Again, dude, there's a pretty good reason that any kind of financial flow outside the established and allowed ones are forbidden for politicians. Especially for leader of states.
Plus, it's pathetic that you think paying 650,000 pounds for wallpaper is okay.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Is the bloody flat that big, or does someone living in it have Russian taste?
The pictures of the Cameron's make it look like a bedsit.
Congratulations America
Yes. I strongly advise against looking up the designer's work, it will upset your stomach.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
£650k is in reference to a different refurbishment scandal (Irvine, during Blair's tenure).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Nope you completely misread it.
I was annoyed by the taxpayer being charged £650,000 of wallpaper by Blair.
I am glad that the taxpayer has not been billed for Boris's wallpaper.
I am glad that there's been no grift, unlike the past.
I understand why you mixed that up. You're so bent out of shape no wonder you took the contrast as what has happened, because that would be bad and you're desperate for Boris to have done something wrong. So no wonder you reversed them.
Getting chummy with Steve Bannon. I remember when Johnson sought his advice on how to win Brexit and advance his career.
If I remember correctly, RB said something like "if that's true I've lost all respect for him". Well it was true, but it seems no respect was lost.
This article is a hot mess, but the following is genuinely surprising:
Twitter Link
Obviously never going to come to that, because accountability is taboo in English politics, but still surprising.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Looks like Downing Street has a *puts on sunglasses* Trolley Problem
YAAAHAHAAHAH
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Also, right... what the fuck does this mean?
"aah, yes, you see people say he's a common liar, but he's actually far worse than that. people don't give him enough credit for just how duplicitous he actually is"First, the benign interpretation of how the PM operates. One insider who knows him well says it is simply "unfair and easy to cry 'liar', as the opposition has done".
"He's far more complex and strategic and people don't give him credit for how calculating and clever he is."
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
It wasn't true.
This was the worst part
Oh no wait this was the worst part
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
If true, this puts the Queen in the very unpleasant position of having to choose between humiliating herself and humiliating her useless assclown of a PM. I expect them to opt for the former out of etiquette.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote