8-Jan-2022 : LAB: 39 / CON: 34 / LDEM: 11 / GRN: 5

[oldnat]

eor

"Why does it matter?

Genuinely curious, I'd rather got the impression (from various posters but you particularly) that "DRoss" was barely a figure of any relevance within Scottish politics, let alone the UK."

An odd perception, I think. AFAIK there are no SCon supporters on UKPR2, so one might expect references to him to be negative, but if he was "barely a figure of any relevance within Scottish politics" (such as Cole-Hamilton) then there would be few, or no, mentions of him at all.

He does lead the largest of the Scottish opposition parties, and has the privilege of asking the first question at FMQs (relegating the SLab leader to second place in usually asking the same question).

I have never suggested that either he (or the SoSforS Alistair Jack) have any relevance within "the UK" (if by that you mean Westminster politics), but they are relevant within a part of the UK.

I am not in the least surprised that Tories in England are dismissive of Scottish politicians - they demonstrate that attitude regularly in HoC. However, to suggest to their supporters in Scotland that their leader is of no import, is poor politics.

[eor]

Jan 13, 2022 0:32:58 GMT oldnat said:

I am not in the least surprised that Tories in England are dismissive of Scottish politicians - they demonstrate that attitude regularly in HoC. However, to suggest to their supporters in Scotland that their leader is of no import, is poor politics.

Why is it poor tho? I thought from your other reference to Ross earlier that you were saying he felt putting himself in contrast to Johnson could be of electoral advantage to Scottish Tories? 

Sorry, I'm not trying to be tricksy here, I think I'm genuinely missing something. If being seen to be at least a tad independent of Westminster control could be good for SCon, why is that bad politics for CON at a UK level?

[eor]

Jan 13, 2022 0:08:36 GMT crossbat11 said:

I'd just like to announce that I won't be posting again. I'm thoroughly fed up with being personally attacked and ridiculed by a certain number of, frankly, sanctimonious and po faced posters.

It's a shame because I was rather enjoying being back and communing with a few old friends, but enough is enough.

Good luck everybody and I hope all your dreams come true. I'm sorry I never became a Senior Member because I was looking forward to the accolade but when you've got to go, well, you've got to go. I won't say anymore because I might get emotional.

Goodbye.

Given your earlier post does that mean our doors will be lightened now instead of darkened?

If so that's good news as there's been an absolute b*gger of a mould in the bottom PVC join in ours, even a toothbrush laced with bicarb won't shift it.

Hopefully your tears will do the job tho, thank you for your self-sacrifice! 

[oldnat]

eor

"And I suspect that's where the Police's rather lampooned disinterest comes from too - that they are yet to see evidence of a crime to investigate."

"The Police" suggests a universal body consistently applying the same rules in the same way (presumably you intend to limit that comment to England).

However, any potential criminal activity taking place in Downing St is a matter for only one police force - the Met.

There have been numerous examples reported of police forces in England (and within the Met area too) investigating cases of Covid regulation breaches, where there was suspicion that such may have happened, without there being concrete evidence in advance of such investigation. Sometimes investigations resulted in prosecutions, sometimes they didn't. If there is insufficient evidence from an investigation then, quite properly, no prosecutions result.

If it is the opinion of Cressida Dick and her advisers that Downing St is Crown Property, and that no crime of this type could have been committed there, that would have been a reasonable statement for them to have made. They made no such statement, nor have they explained why they have decided that no evidence exists that a crime may have been committed.

While I realise that your contributions are frequently designed to challenge "received opinion", they would be better founded on an evidential basis.

[oldnat]

eor

"Why is it poor tho? I thought from your other reference to Ross earlier that you were saying he felt putting himself in contrast to Johnson could be of electoral advantage to Scottish Tories?"

No. You misunderstood (I'm not quite sure how). I was referring to an internal debate within SCon. You may have been unaware of it, but everyone interested in Scottish politics isn't. These aren't hard concepts to understand.

"Sorry, I'm not trying to be tricksy here, I think I'm genuinely missing something. If being seen to be at least a tad independent of Westminster control could be good for SCon, why is that bad politics for CON at a UK level?"

Sorry. I thought my point was obvious, but clearly not. Of course, if Tories in England don't care about alienating their supporters in Scotland, wish no SCon MPs, and feel that such attitudes bolster their support in England, then that could be "good politics" in the short term for an English Conservative Party.

[oldnat]

It may be that, back in 2015, when the BBC did a report on Sue Gray they were inaccurate. I have no idea,

However, if accurate, perhaps the Tories constant description of her as "independent" and "impartial" may be somewhat lacking in nuance.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33431580

[eor]

Jan 13, 2022 0:55:39 GMT oldnat said:

eor

"And I suspect that's where the Police's rather lampooned disinterest comes from too - that they are yet to see evidence of a crime to investigate."

"The Police" suggests a universal body consistently applying the same rules in the same way (presumably you intend to limit that comment to England).

However, any potential criminal activity taking place in Downing St is a matter for only one police force - the Met.

Yes, which is what I meant by "the Police" as they are the relevant Police in this case. The rest of that you entirely made up yourself in order to argue with.

If it is the opinion of Cressida Dick and her advisers that Downing St is Crown Property, and that no crime of this type could have been committed there, that would have been a reasonable statement for them to have made. They made no such statement, nor have they explained why they have decided that no evidence exists that a crime may have been committed.

While I realise that your contributions are frequently designed to challenge "received opinion", they would be better founded on an evidential basis.

And you have an evidential basis for suggesting that the Met are in the habit of explaining their detailed reasoning when not pursuing what is perceived by the media and/or general public to be a worthwhile complaint?

[eor]

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:56 GMT oldnat said:

eor

"Why is it poor tho? I thought from your other reference to Ross earlier that you were saying he felt putting himself in contrast to Johnson could be of electoral advantage to Scottish Tories?"

No. You misunderstood (I'm not quite sure how). I was referring to an internal debate within SCon. You may have been unaware of it, but everyone interested in Scottish politics isn't. These aren't hard concepts to understand.

Perhaps not, but as you're not posting on a Scottish politics website it might be reasonable to explain politely when asked to elaborate on a phrase as illuminating as "Smogg dissing SCon leader perhaps not a wise move." rather than to patronisingly complain that someone who read your post is interested to better understand what you actually meant.

Sorry. I thought my point was obvious, but clearly not. Of course, if Tories in England don't care about alienating their supporters in Scotland, wish no SCon MPs, and feel that such attitudes bolster their support in England, then that could be "good politics" in the short term for an English Conservative Party.

Well it's not obvious, because you also said;

"Of all the Scots politicians calling for Johnson to resign, Ross is probably the only one who genuinely believes that such would improve their party's potential ratings."

Of course you may well think him mistaken for taking this approach, but at least don't lord it when someone asks you why you think this is.

[Danny]

Jan 12, 2022 19:47:17 GMT jib said:

Danny

Excellent news on the success of vaccine.

Omicron isn't such good news if you were one of the idiots advocating herd immunity through "natural" infection.

Equally good outcomes in South Africa where they only vaccinated 30% of the population with two doses. I'd suggest what that really says is the Uk received 5x as many vaccination doses as were useful.

[moby]

Jan 12, 2022 23:36:50 GMT @tw said:

Snap polls from ComRes (from y'day), several on their twitter feed so I'll just pick one:

Surely with numbers like these Labour need to back off a bit and let him coast along?.....not such a good idea for the country though perhaps.

[neilj]

eor

The law at the time was that you must stay at home unless you had a reasonable excuse to leave. You could only meet up ourside with one other person from outside your household.

The guidance was you should work from home if you could. You were allowed to go to work if you needed to. But there is no way a party in which people were told to 'bring your own booze!' which was scheduled to take place at the end of the working day could be classed as work. Indeed around 60 of the 100 invited refused to attend, a small number were incredulous such a party was taking place.

Notable that it is now apparent friends of Carrie, who did not work at Downing Street, also attended

This took place against the background of people not being able to see their dying relatives in hospital or visit loved ones in care homes. People were not allowed see their grandchildren. There was a maximum of 5 who could attend a funeral as well as numerous other restrictionson on us

This party seems to me clearly in breach of the law and guidance at the time, which Johnson both brought in and told us repeatedly we had to follow

[neilj]

[lululemonmustdobetter]

mercian
I've just got to come up with a decent name. What do you think of 'Duke of Earl'?

Surely it should be King Offa?

[lululemonmustdobetter]

Jan 12, 2022 23:41:41 GMT mandolinist said:

With a poll like that I still think my prediction of him being gone by close of play tomorrow is a possibility. It has the feel of the response to the "dementia tax" announcement by Theresa May, the main difference being that the tax had some things to reccomend it, Mr Johnson's premiership, not so much.
The rest of his Cabinet have made themselves hostages to fortune, the only way out for them is to resign from the Cabinet, 'on a matter of principle", otherwise they will carry the smell of lying with them into the leadership campaign. In my opinion, of course.

Hi mandolinist  if polls keep on showing double digit leads for Labour and nearly 50% of Tory VI saying he should resign his days are highly probably numbered - but what we know of him he is likely to fight to the end (the man has no shame) rather than 'do the decent thing'.

If the Tories do ditch him, get a new leader and a honeymoon bounce, Turk's prediction may truly prove prescient.

[neilj]

Yougov on best PM

Who would make the best prime minister?

Starmer 35 (+2)
Johnson 23 (-5)

[neilj]

Looking at the latest yougov poll it is hard to believe now it was not that long ago some were saying the floor of Conservative support was around 40%

[neilj]

[jimjam]

Mandolist.
''The rest of his Cabinet have made themselves hostages to fortune, the only way out for them is to resign from the Cabinet, 'on a matter of principle", otherwise they will carry the smell of lying with them into the leadership campaign. In my opinion, of course.''

Trevor and I shared a post or 2 around the impact on the cabinet after I suggested that the longer Johnson stays in post the more the negative impact on ministers who don't resign.

For now, though, senior cabinet ministers have 'waiting for the Gray report' to hide behind and can argue that stability is important at this time etc. As such I don't think much damage is being done to most cabinet ministers just yet.

Interesting that Wes Streeting on Newsnight was trying to widen opprobrium to cover other cabinet ministers and I expect we will see Labour shift their focus to an extent on to the Conservative party as a whole (they gave us this charlatan kind of stuff) and specific people perhaps in the coming days.

Alistair Campbell with his strategic insight starting this several days ago.

Finally, Labour have adopted a position that I and others have taken for some weeks that if they were concerned with narrow party interest they would want a damaged Johnson to stay as PM but for the good of the country he should go; nice little side message.

We may see some use of suggestions of it being unpatriotic to support Johnson staying as PM etc, trying to turn the use (mis-use) of the patriot card on its' head or at least blunt the impact.

[neilj]

From reports it is my understanding that the Gray report will not assign blame, or make a ruling whether law/guidance had been broken, but set out what she thinks the facts are for each of the Parties/gatherings.
In which case we will be back to arguing did he or did he not break the law and or guidance. I do not think it will put the matter to rest

[lululemonmustdobetter]

@jim jam
Interesting that Wes Streeting on Newsnight was trying to widen opprobrium to cover other cabinet ministers and I expect we will see Labour shift their focus to an extent on to the Conservative party as a whole (they gave us this charlatan kind of stuff) and specific people perhaps in the coming days.
Good, and hopefully it sticks - the Tories collectively chose one of the most ill-equipped individuals for the post of leader/PM for the sake of staying in power knowing full well what he was like. I remember some of them going on about how it will be a rollercoaster etc but it’s been the country that has paid dearly for their ride - now they need to pay the price!

[alec]

neilj - "From reports it is my understanding that the Gray report will not assign blame, or make a ruling whether law/guidance had been broken, but set out what she thinks the facts are for each of the Parties/gatherings.
In which case we will be back to arguing did he or did he not break the law and or guidance. I do not think it will put the matter to rest"

That's exactly what I expect and what I predicted yesterday. The inquiry won't take on the role of throwing our a sitting PM, but will instead throw the decision back to MPs. It won't get the Conservatives off the hook, in terms of public opinion.

[steve]

Regarding
Police investigation of the obvious party/ies at number 10.

If it's accepted that this is crown property and unless specific legislative inclusion is included.
The police have
No powers to enter to investigate a crime.
No powered to detain or arrest if a crime has occurred.
Even if they discover a crime no powers to instigate or prosecution.

This means pretty comprehensive placing of government ministers and uniquely the head of state , who could literally commit any crime they like with complete impunity because their actions are not defined as a crime if they occur on crown property or in the head of state's case the entire realm.
In order for police to investigate and act upon an allegation on crown land the relevant legislation requires to include specific reference to it applying on crown land so that crown immunity doesn't apply.
As far as I am aware no such inclusion related to the covid restrictions.
Of course senior police officers and ministers never mention this it puts us on a par with North Korea.


In terms of political implications relying on crown immunity is likely to be electorally disastrous and might just bring the whole equal under the law charade to public attention.

[hireton]

Jan 12, 2022 22:55:09 GMT mercian said:

Does anyone else wonder about the timing of these revelations? After all, the party was 18 months ago. Lots of people must have known about it - for a start the 100 who were invited. I'm amazed that it hasn't been leaked before, but also wonder who decided that this was a good moment, and why? All I can think of is that it's to steal the thunder from Covid restrictions being removed soon. Therefore suspects would be an opposition party, or sympathiser?

Cummings and Cain. Took down Stratton first as her appointment and role was not to their liking. Released further details while covid was still a high priority issue and Johnson was facing dissent within the Tory party.

[hireton]

Jan 13, 2022 0:29:24 GMT thexterminatingdalek said:

Not sure if anyone's picked up on one of Johnson's lines earlier, but "I should have found other ways to thank them"

It seems an odd thing to say while maintaining he didn't know what was happening until he wandered downstairs, and his spokesperson at the press conference afterwards said the PM wasn't on the email circulation list.

Yes, I noted that. Combined with his PPS email which said "We...." it rather points to a joint decision at least.

[barbara]

Jan 13, 2022 6:34:34 GMT lululemonmustdobetter said:

mercian
I've just got to come up with a decent name. What do you think of 'Duke of Earl'?

Surely it should be King Offa?

King Offa a bit of land?

[steamdrivenandy]

Jan 13, 2022 7:31:05 GMT neilj said:

From reports it is my understanding that the Gray report will not assign blame, or make a ruling whether law/guidance had been broken, but set out what she thinks the facts are for each of the Parties/gatherings.
In which case we will be back to arguing did he or did he not break the law and or guidance. I do not think it will put the matter to rest

That's been my feeling all along.

It is surely in the nature and upbringing of senior civil servants to pass the buck and it would be against all her natural inclinations, in such charged circumstances, to be the swinger of the Damoclean (?) Sword. Johnson and the Cabinet will know and understand that, which makes the plea to wait for the inquiry results just a means to buy time. 

Is Batty up yet?
That boy's an habitual leaver, no matter what he says about the referendum. 

[steve]

" Andrew it's Boris, remember the story we were both in the pizza express in St Helens when ever whatever happened happened "

" No sweat"

[steamdrivenandy]

Does Crown immunity mean that if you burgled No 10 the Met wouldn't have jurisdiction?

If so, who provides security at such government property?

[barbara]

Jan 13, 2022 8:03:04 GMT hireton said:

Jan 12, 2022 22:55:09 GMT mercian said:

Does anyone else wonder about the timing of these revelations? After all, the party was 18 months ago. Lots of people must have known about it - for a start the 100 who were invited. I'm amazed that it hasn't been leaked before, but also wonder who decided that this was a good moment, and why? All I can think of is that it's to steal the thunder from Covid restrictions being removed soon. Therefore suspects would be an opposition party, or sympathiser?

Cummings and Cain. Took down Stratton first as her appointment and role was not to their liking. Released further details while covid was still a high priority issue and Johnson was facing dissent within the Tory party.

Pippa Crear of the Mirror was on BBC News last night and stated clearly that her source(s) wasn't Cummings. She said," We don't have a relationship with him after our Barnard Castle reporting.
The thing is there are innumerable suspects. The Johnsons plural have p*ssed off so many people (staff, friends, MPS) with their lies, arrogance and penchant for throwing any and everybody under the bus to save themselves. I think this stuff will keep coming from all sides. The Guardian had a little thing yesterday inviting people to contact them with this kind of stuff anonymously and securely using something 
called 'Secure Drop' and helpfully provided a link.

[hireton]

Jan 13, 2022 1:38:45 GMT eor said:

Jan 13, 2022 1:06:56 GMT oldnat said:

eor

"Why is it poor tho? I thought from your other reference to Ross earlier that you were saying he felt putting himself in contrast to Johnson could be of electoral advantage to Scottish Tories?"

No. You misunderstood (I'm not quite sure how). I was referring to an internal debate within SCon. You may have been unaware of it, but everyone interested in Scottish politics isn't. These aren't hard concepts to understand.

Perhaps not, but as you're not posting on a Scottish politics website it might be reasonable to explain politely when asked to elaborate on a phrase as illuminating as "Smogg dissing SCon leader perhaps not a wise move." rather than to patronisingly complain that someone who read your post is interested to better understand what you actually meant.

Sorry. I thought my point was obvious, but clearly not. Of course, if Tories in England don't care about alienating their supporters in Scotland, wish no SCon MPs, and feel that such attitudes bolster their support in England, then that could be "good politics" in the short term for an English Conservative Party.

Well it's not obvious, because you also said;

"Of all the Scots politicians calling for Johnson to resign, Ross is probably the only one who genuinely believes that such would improve their party's potential ratings."

Of course you may well think him mistaken for taking this approach, but at least don't lord it when someone asks you why you think this is.

The unionist pitch, and especially the Scon pitch, is that Scotland is a valued and influential member of the UK and that the Scottish Tory MPs are influential at Westminster.

Two leading Cabinet Ministers said yesterday that the leader of the Scottish Tories ( installed as leader by a Westminster party led putsch against Carlaw) is a lightweight irrelevance as by implication are the majority of Tory MSPs.

Politically, Ross and the Scottish Tories have been labelled as lightweight and irrelevant by their own party so how do they campaign with any credibility? A