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

[Hobsons Choice]

Let's get it straight, Rishi isn't a poor Prime Minister because of a seat belt violation. He's a poor Prime Minister because he's the head of a party hellbent on f**king the poor over for a percentage.

[foreveryoung]

34 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Let's get it straight, Rishi isn't a poor Prime Minister because of a seat belt violation. He's a poor Prime Minister because he's the head of a party hellbent on f**king the poor over for a percentage.

It sounds like you not counting Rishi as part of the problem. He has absolutely no idea how the general public live there lives. He literally grew up with the silver spoon stuck in his gob. Terrible terrible example of what a Prime minister should be. He would sell expensive cocktails and champagne in your local pub, even if most of the customers come for the cheap ale.

[Hobsons Choice]

6 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

It sounds like you not counting Rishi as part of the problem. He has absolutely no idea how the general public live there lives. He literally grew up with the silver spoon stuck in his gob. Terrible terrible example of what a Prime minister should be. He would sell expensive cocktails and champagne in your local pub, even if most of the customers come for the cheap ale.

You are right it sort of sounded like that, but trust me, I am. 

[choffer]

 

[Davkaus]

I'll be charitable and assume he just had a similar idea and didn't nick Michael Spicer's bit

 

 

[OutByEaster?]

I read the suggestion that the reason these stories are all coming out now is that Johnson (with an eye on getting back into number 10) has people pushing stories against Sunak's key people and Sunak is countering with the stories on Boris.

Any idea if there's likely to be any truth in that?

Under what circumstances can we get a general election because the current government is essentially a gang of pirates?

 

[ml1dch]

9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Under what circumstances can we get a general election because the current government is essentially a gang of pirates?

A majority of MPs voting for there to be one. 

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

A majority of MPs voting for there to be one. 

Ah.

Bugger.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I read the suggestion that the reason these stories are all coming out now is that Johnson (with an eye on getting back into number 10) has people pushing stories against Sunak's key people and Sunak is countering with the stories on Boris.

Any idea if there's likely to be any truth in that?

Definitely blue on blue, it has all the hallmarks.

Zahawi tried to use the law to hide his tax affairs - as much as we all knew about it it wasn't widely reported because well you work it out, then The Scum broke cover and the rest reported the Scum story (Murdoch = Team Boris)

Why pick on Zahawi? Because he's the splitter. Formerly Team Johnson who changed his mind in hours of publicly supporting Johnson to become a Rishi cheerleader. Two birds one stone

Lo and behold, the Johnson / £880k loan / DG BBC story breaks. Retaliation baby.

And then the seatbelt moment just adds to the fun

I look forward to the sequel of all sequels, new Tory Leader Coup IV

May to Johnson, Johnson to Truss, Truss to Sunak and the forthcoming Sunak to ?

Just wait until someone proposes changing the rules to the 1922 ctte for the St Petersberg CruiserAurora moment

It's implausible but it might just happen because this lot are completely off the rails

[DCJonah]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I read the suggestion that the reason these stories are all coming out now is that Johnson (with an eye on getting back into number 10) has people pushing stories against Sunak's key people and Sunak is countering with the stories on Boris.

Any idea if there's likely to be any truth in that?

Under what circumstances can we get a general election because the current government is essentially a gang of pirates?

 

I find it incredible that there isn't some sort of measure to trigger one. What is there to protect the country when a government becomes this incompetent and corrupt?

[OutByEaster?]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

May to Johnson, Johnson to Truss, Truss to Sunak and the forthcoming Sunak to ?

White knight and returning hero Boris Johnson?

I genuinely think the Tory party are so removed from real life that they don't have any clue as to why they're not polling well and think it must be down to how their leaders present things. 

They're seen as thieving, corrupt, criminals intent on breaking up the country for personal gain - and the big idea coming from the back benches to turn it around and triumph in the next election?

An income tax cut.

The electorate don't even want tax cuts, they want better, properly funded public services, better roads, better trains, better schools, better hospitals, the public want more tax, from the people most able to afford it - and the Tories think if they drop a penny from our income tax we'll bend over and vote for the opposite instead.

It's a party so out of touch with the outside world and so heavily involved with donors, lobbyists and infighting that the woods have completely and absolutely disappeared behind the trees.

I'm hoping for a year or so of further scandal and the worst election result in the history of a major party.

 

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, bickster said:

Definitely blue on blue, it has all the hallmarks.

Zahawi tried to use the law to hide his tax affairs - as much as we all knew about it it wasn't widely reported because well you work it out, then The Scum broke cover and the rest reported the Scum story (Murdoch = Team Boris)

Why pick on Zahawi? Because he's the splitter. Formerly Team Johnson who changed his mind in hours of publicly supporting Johnson to become a Rishi cheerleader. Two birds one stone

Lo and behold, the Johnson / £880k loan / DG BBC story breaks. Retaliation baby.

And then the seatbelt moment just adds to the fun

I look forward to the sequel of all sequels, new Tory Leader Coup IV

May to Johnson, Johnson to Truss, Truss to Sunak and the forthcoming Sunak to ?

Just wait until someone proposes changing the rules to the 1922 ctte for the St Petersberg CruiserAurora moment

It's implausible but it might just happen because this lot are completely off the rails

I agree with some of that. But not all of it. Various papers, including the Guardian, the Indie, The Times...etc. had been looking into Zahawi for ages. As soon as Zahawi got wind of that, he appointed solicitors to both deny it and threaten legal action against the papers and individuals. The papers(and TV) were cautious and didn't publish full blown accusations about Zahawi's arrangements until the point more evidence came to light. Once it did, they've been able to give a lot more detail. On my iPad Apple News app, there's a story from the Sunday Times that goes over the timeline and the details quite thoroughly.

But you're right that different factions are scheming and leaking and all the rest of it, rats and sinking ships and so on.

[bickster]

37 minutes ago, blandy said:

I agree with some of that. But not all of it. Various papers, including the Guardian, the Indie, The Times...etc. had been looking into Zahawi for ages. As soon as Zahawi got wind of that, he appointed solicitors to both deny it and threaten legal action against the papers and individuals. The papers(and TV) were cautious and didn't publish full blown accusations about Zahawi's arrangements until the point more evidence came to light. Once it did, they've been able to give a lot more detail. On my iPad Apple News app, there's a story from the Sunday Times that goes over the timeline and the details quite thoroughly.

But you're right that different factions are scheming and leaking and all the rest of it, rats and sinking ships and so on.

Agreed but when the story broke this week, it took a number of days before it broke properly as the media were still being wary. People were complaining that the BBC wasn’t covering it, when in fact it was most outlets weren’t covering it. It was only when the Scum put their head above the trenches that the others followed suit by reporting that the Scum was reporting.

I agree that others like the Guardian and the Indie etc had been tracking and researching the story for a while and had all been threatened by Zahawi's solicitors. That wasn’t what I was talking about, I was just referring to this week's events 

[LondonLax]

Someone has obviously been willing to be ‘the source’ for the Zahawi story only recently.

The papers would have known about it (or at least the gist) but had no way of confirming as the tax office are not going to disclose that kind of personal information and Zahawi himself was denying and threatening legal action. 

[Davkaus]

Even by this government's standards, Cleverley being wheeled out to defend things today was farcical. He knows nothing, it's not his responsibility to know, and he's just come back from holiday so isn't completely up to speed. What are you doing on the television then you ineffective nobhead? 

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Even by this government's standards, Cleverley being wheeled out to defend things today was farcical. He knows nothing, it's not his responsibility to know, and he's just come back from holiday so isn't completely up to speed. What are you doing on the television then you ineffective nobhead? 

When Laura the Tory ends up asking you why you've come on the programme when you knew what the topic was and know nothing says it all

[blandy]

Quote

I’d made a series of quite technical accusations, which Zahawi had denied. His lawyers had written to newspapers. It was not an easy story for the media to cover — though The Sunday Times did run an interview with me in December. Zahawi’s strategy of saying nothing appeared to have triumphed. Until last Sunday, January 15, 2023.

The Sun on Sunday had a scoop: it reported that Zahawi had paid “several million pounds” to settle a dispute with HMRC, with the suggestion that the dispute centred on YouGov.

The newspaper carried a faintly hilarious non-denial denial from Zahawi’s spokesman stating that Zahawi had “never had to instruct any lawyers to deal with HMRC on his behalf”. This read to me like a tacit admission that the story was true but that Zahawi had instructed an accounting firm to do the work rather than lawyers. Other journalists followed up the story, pushing Zahawi’s people for comment — with no reply....

...

the most likely scenario is that Zahawi panicked after I published my first findings about YouGov last July and went to HMRC to reach a speedy settlement to make the whole thing go away. Reports suggest the settlement was more than £3.7 million of tax — the same figure I identified back in July — then interest and 30 per cent penalties. That level of penalties is consistent with him having “failed to take reasonable care” — an astonishing way for an experienced businessman and senior politician to behave after receiving, by my reckoning, £27 million.

Four key considerations remain.

Zahawi said nothing unusual went on with YouGov and no tax was avoided. That seems impossible to reconcile with the terms of the settlement being reported.

He maintained for months that all his taxes are properly declared and paid in the UK. He told Newsnight on Wednesday that his taxes “were and are fully up to date”. But nobody pays millions in tax to settle a dispute with HMRC when their taxes are “properly declared and paid”.

The timings make it possible Zahawi may have started negotiating a settlement with HMRC while he was chancellor, from July 5 to September 6 last year. If that were the case, it’s harder to imagine a worse conflict of interest.

And — most important of all — public confidence in the tax system is shredded if people have the perception that there’s one rule for ministers and another for the rest of us. Ministers shouldn’t avoid tax. They shouldn’t dodge questions about their tax affairs — and the certainly shouldn’t set lawyers on the people raising the questions.

Extracts from https://apple.news/AFKIXtOUNTjS4OBd3qTXN8w

[bickster]

Thought to be the largest ever donation to a UK MP.

[tinker]

6 hours ago, DCJonah said:

I find it incredible that there isn't some sort of measure to trigger one. What is there to protect the country when a government becomes this incompetent and corrupt?

The King of England? 

[bickster]

Whilst we're at it, this story broke yesterday I think. Much more on the Guardian article

Quote

 MI5 refused to investigate ‘Russian spy’s’ links to Tories, says whistleblower

Party member lodges a complaint about the security services ignoring attempt of Russian infiltration into the Conservatives

MI5 repeatedly refused to investigate evidence that an alleged Russian spy was attempting to cultivate influence with senior Conservative politicians and channel illegal Russian funds into the party, a Tory member has alleged in a new complaint lodged with the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT).

Sergei Cristo, a Conservative party activist and a former journalist with the BBC World Service, has lodged a complaint with the investigatory powers tribunal, filing the case after corresponding with the chair of parliament’s intelligence and security committee, Conservative MP Julian Lewis, who recommended he take the information to the authorities.

The committee’s Russia report claimed in 2020 that the security services had turned a blind eye to “credible evidence” of Russian interference and Cristo’s allegations offer potentially explosive new evidence that confirms its findings. Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said “allegations that the security services ignored evidence from a Conservative whistleblower exposing Russian infiltration at the highest levels of the party are truly shocking” and claimed the “Conservative party’s Russia problem” was an ongoing threat to Britain’s national security.[...]