The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[Genie]

 

Quote

Boris Johnson is expected to begin a cabinet reshuffle soon, as part of his promise to revitalise the government.

The prime minister, under pressure over parties in Downing Street during lockdown, will start meeting ministers inside No 10 soon for what are being described as "small" changes.

It is expected that the Chief Whip, Mark Spencer, will be moved, the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said.

Ok

Quote

Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg could also take a new Brexit-related role.

The Beeb

[ender4]

24 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Shell are predicting profits of £40bn in the coming year.

Sunak says a windfall tax wouldn't be fair and might affect their ability to transition to clean energy.

How about we tax their windfall, then legislate their transition and if they can't meet that legislation we fine them?

We are not the constituency that he serves.

 

 

I don't think there should be a windfall tax really.   What there should be in a higher rate of tax generally on these fossil fuel companies that bring in extra billions every year.

But seeing that we missed that boat many years ago, yes a windfall tax is a good short-term quick fix.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Probably going to regret wading in to this, but here goes:

The actual truth is somewhere between Chris Philp's line here that it was 'correct' on the one hand and the claim that what Johnson said was a 'lie' on the other.

Factually:

a] Keir Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service, in his role of Director of Public Prosecutions;

b] The CPS made a decision not to prosecute Savile in 2009, before his death, having received two accusations;

c] After Savile died, this failure to prosecute was widely criticised;

d] As a result of the criticism, Keir Starmer set up an enquiry into the organisation's decision not to prosecute;

e] The enquiry found that mistakes were made in this decision process, but did not find that Starmer personally had anything to do with the decision;

f] Starmer issued an apology after the enquiry reported, in his role as DPP - *not* a personal apology but an institutional one;

g] Starmer claims to have made some internal reforms as a result of the enquiry to have made a similar decision less likely in the future;

h] The connection between Starmer and Savile has been made before, both by Conservative politicians and on far right websites;

i] Johnson then infamously brought it up in Parliament. It's probably worth mentioning that Johnson was more careful with his words than has been assumed: he accused Starmer of 'failing' to prosecute Savile, not of 'refusing' to prosecute him or 'deciding not to' prosecute him or any other structure that implied an active decision.

Johnson's accusation has been called a smear (which it is) and a libel (which it isn't IMO, and wouldn't be even without Parliamentary privilege). Rather, it is 'technically not untrue but highly misleading and missing lots of relevant context'. It was certainly classless and unnecessary, given it was completely irrelevant to the subject at hand when he said it.

*However*, there is a bit of a double standard at play here. The Labour front bench are not averse to the principle, in other contexts, that the head of an organisation is responsible for the actions that happen in that organisation; certainly they have blamed Johnson for all parties/gatherings etc at number 10, not just those he attended or knew about, through the claim that as PM he is responsible for the 'culture' of number 10 (even though the heavy drinking part of that culture seems to have existed long before his time as PM, as we have learned recently).

Happy to be corrected, but from memory Boris' words were that Keir Starmer "Refused to prosecute Jimmy Savile"

It's hard to argue that that is "correct"

 

But maybe I'm remembering it incorrectly. If he said "Failed" then you're right, technically he's right. But it's generous

[Stevo985]

46 minutes ago, Genie said:

People will though. We’ve seen several examples already “I’m disgusted with Boris Johnson and this government but I’ll still keep voting blue”.

Saw my aunt the other day.

"Don't know why people are going on about these parties. Everyone broke the rules at some point. He's doing a good job so let him get on with it"

[Mark Albrighton]

The people who say “everyone broke the rules”, what do they think of those who were caught and subsequently fined? Tough shit? Do they think they should be refunded? They can be fined but those in the government can’t be?

Curious as to the mental gymnastics.

[Xann]

2 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Curious as to the mental gymnastics.

The free newspaper at the supermarket does the gymnastics, ignores the issues and deflects blame from Brexit and its PM.

Then the mislead reel it off parrot fashion.

[HanoiVillan]

50 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Happy to be corrected, but from memory Boris' words were that Keir Starmer "Refused to prosecute Jimmy Savile"

It's hard to argue that that is "correct"

 

But maybe I'm remembering it incorrectly. If he said "Failed" then you're right, technically he's right. But it's generous

Tweet with a screenshot from Hansard:

 

[bickster]

28 minutes ago, Xann said:

The free newspaper at the supermarket

Not wholly connected but the Waitrose - Free Newspaper Deal is ending soon. 

[markavfc40]

The Tories work in setting up the NHS to fail is nearly complete. Now 6 million on the waiting list (was already 4.5 million pre covid). Javid said today this 6 million figure will keep rising and not start reducing until March 2024 and one year waits not going to end for another 3 years. 

Those pledges have immediately been said to be wildly optimistic as the NHS is majorly under staffed and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Job pretty much done. 

 

[Hobsons Choice]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

 

Ok

The Beeb

I'm not comparing Rees-Mogg with any historical European leaders in particular, but I would point out that he has the haircut. That's all I'm saying. Publicly.  

[blandy]

3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

he accused Starmer of 'failing' to prosecute Savile

And that claim is untrue. it is a lie.

The CPS failed to prosecute. Starmer did not. It's really important to distinguish between them. Yes, he was the Head of the CPS as DPP, but it was not his role, terms of reference or responsibility to decide whether to prosecute or not.

Around 2000 -3000 cases per day, not far short of a million a year, are taken to prosecution. It has never been the role of the DPP to decide on what course of action to take for all these cases. That's why there are thousands of legals working for the CPS. There was no element of neglecting or falling short of expectations in terms of the DPP, related to that case.

It's a lie and a smear. He's got failings, Starmer, but protecting paedophiles is so far from a valid accusation as to be appalling. That Tories both raised such a claim, and then refused to back down is beyond reprehensible. A few, to their credit have, acknowleged that. The rest present yet another reason to loathe them. 

[HanoiVillan]

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

And that claim is untrue. it is a lie.

The CPS failed to prosecute. Starmer did not. It's really important to distinguish between them. Yes, he was the Head of the CPS as DPP, but it was not his role, terms of reference or responsibility to decide whether to prosecute or not.

Around 2000 -3000 cases per day, not far short of a million a year, are taken to prosecution. It has never been the role of the DPP to decide on what course of action to take for all these cases. That's why there are thousands of legals working for the CPS. There was no element of neglecting or falling short of expectations in terms of the DPP, related to that case.

It's a lie and a smear. He's got failings, Starmer, but protecting paedophiles is so far from a valid accusation as to be appalling. That Tories both raised such a claim, and then refused to back down is beyond reprehensible. A few, to their credit have, acknowleged that. The rest present yet another reason to loathe them. 

I don't disagree with much of that.

It is definitely the case that the role of the DPP obviously does not oversee all cases individually. The enquiry did not find that he had any role in the decision of this case. However it is *possible* for the DPP to personally intervene in high-profile cases; in particular it was alleged at the time (though also denied) that the CPS were fighting the appeals for the 'Twitter joke trial' conviction on his insistence.

Johnson was absolutely wrong to make the claim, and I am not arguing otherwise. Whether we consider what he said a lie or highly misleading, the issue is the harm he knew he was risking by dropping such an inflammatory accusation, without support, into an unrelated point.

[chrisp65]

Two MP’s murdered in recent times, and Johnson claims Starmer wouldn’t prosecute a famous paedophile. 

It’s dangerous beyond words. Johnson appears to be content to get as bad as he needs to be.

Not even a veneer of decency, just a deeply horrible person.

 

 

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

Whether we consider what he said a lie or highly misleading, the issue is the harm he knew he was risking by dropping such an inflammatory accusation, without support, into an unrelated point.

Yes. This. very much so.

[HanoiVillan]

In case you were wondering how seriously they're taking the investigation into whether this guy told a woman she had been sacked from cabinet for being too Muslim, he's been given a promotion to cabinet while the 'investigation' is allegedly ongoing:

 

[OutByEaster?]

 

What's the collective noun for a group of these?

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

What's the collective noun for a group of these?

A Jackanory

[chrisp65]

14 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

 

What's the collective noun for a group of these?

 

Tories.

 

[ml1dch]

24 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

 

What's the collective noun for a group of these?

It's made even funnier* given under his DCMS remit he is the "disinformation minister". I'm guessing he didn't read his brief fully and hadn't realised that it's to prevent it, not to spread it.

*new synonym for worse

[blandy]