Cummings, Johnson and this whole shit show

[Knutsfordian]

Ah, so once again it is the Labour Party that is at fault! Jeesh, Knutsfordian you should get a job working for Boris and his cronies given your ability to spin a story?.

Lobbying has existed ever since the serpent persuaded Eve to take the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. And of course the TUs lobby parties of all colours as do other bodies - including most of the charities I support.

But the difference between between these relationships and many fostered with the Tory party is that it is private gain that drives them.

I can only imagine how hard pressed and busy Treasury officials must have been over the last 12 months what with managing the furlough system along with doing ‘the day job’.

Yet despite this, during this period senior Treasury officials met with representatives of Greensill 10 times!

Oh, and I could also drop in the Jenrick - Desmond scandal here. You recall this don’t you?

So despite agreeing to meet with Greensill 10 times - there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies. So exactly what is the charge here? Wasting police/treasury/civil service time? That's why I am saying that there needs to be a crime identified if any of this is to stick - and if there is a crime then punish the villains !

We agree that lobbying has been going on for time immemorial and that sometimes it is for good reasons - "Lobbying and trying to influence government decisions predates any parliamentary democracy and was just as prevalent in any Labour government as any Conservative one - isn't that what the Unions do by paying for Labour's election expenses and sponsoring MPs? So this whole murky business of who is exerting influence, and when, is a matter of concern and debate but not necessarily every instance is an incidence of corruption."

Where we disagree is that I think Starmer is another one of his opposition and bluster charges without any evidence to back it up. Unless he can find the crime he's just making himself look a useless idiot - and there are already plenty of those in the Labour Party - which goes back to my criticisms about their approach and lack of talent. They have too many tub thumpers and not enough leaders and strategists. Even when given a good opportunity to cause the Conservatives some pain, Labour are putting the wrong ammunition in the gun and firing blanks !!

 

[James Wood]

So despite agreeing to meet with Greensill 10 times - there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies. So exactly what is the charge here? Wasting police/treasury/civil service time? That's why I am saying that there needs to be a crime identified if any of this is to stick - and if there is a crime then punish the villains !

We agree that lobbying has been going on for time immemorial and that sometimes it is for good reasons - "Lobbying and trying to influence government decisions predates any parliamentary democracy and was just as prevalent in any Labour government as any Conservative one - isn't that what the Unions do by paying for Labour's election expenses and sponsoring MPs? So this whole murky business of who is exerting influence, and when, is a matter of concern and debate but not necessarily every instance is an incidence of corruption."

Where we disagree is that I think Starmer is another one of his opposition and bluster charges without any evidence to back it up. Unless he can find the crime he's just making himself look a useless idiot - and there are already plenty of those in the Labour Party - which goes back to my criticisms about their approach and lack of talent. They have too many tub thumpers and not enough leaders and strategists. Even when given a good opportunity to cause the Conservatives some pain, Labour are putting the wrong ammunition in the gun and firing blanks !!

there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies.

So despite agreeing to meet with Greensill 10 times - there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies. So exactly what is the charge here? Wasting police/treasury/civil service time? That's why I am saying that there needs to be a crime identified if any of this is to stick - and if there is a crime then punish the villains !

We agree that lobbying has been going on for time immemorial and that sometimes it is for good reasons - "Lobbying and trying to influence government decisions predates any parliamentary democracy and was just as prevalent in any Labour government as any Conservative one - isn't that what the Unions do by paying for Labour's election expenses and sponsoring MPs? So this whole murky business of who is exerting influence, and when, is a matter of concern and debate but not necessarily every instance is an incidence of corruption."

Where we disagree is that I think Starmer is another one of his opposition and bluster charges without any evidence to back it up. Unless he can find the crime he's just making himself look a useless idiot - and there are already plenty of those in the Labour Party - which goes back to my criticisms about their approach and lack of talent. They have too many tub thumpers and not enough leaders and strategists. Even when given a good opportunity to cause the Conservatives some pain, Labour are putting the wrong ammunition in the gun and firing blanks !! there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies.

So despite agreeing to meet with Greensill 10 times - there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies. So exactly what is the charge here? Wasting police/treasury/civil service time? That's why I am saying that there needs to be a crime identified if any of this is to stick - and if there is a crime then punish the villains !

We agree that lobbying has been going on for time immemorial and that sometimes it is for good reasons - "Lobbying and trying to influence government decisions predates any parliamentary democracy and was just as prevalent in any Labour government as any Conservative one - isn't that what the Unions do by paying for Labour's election expenses and sponsoring MPs? So this whole murky business of who is exerting influence, and when, is a matter of concern and debate but not necessarily every instance is an incidence of corruption."

Where we disagree is that I think Starmer is another one of his opposition and bluster charges without any evidence to back it up. Unless he can find the crime he's just making himself look a useless idiot - and there are already plenty of those in the Labour Party - which goes back to my criticisms about their approach and lack of talent. They have too many tub thumpers and not enough leaders and strategists. Even when given a good opportunity to cause the Conservatives some pain, Labour are putting the wrong ammunition in the gun and firing blanks !!

“there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies”.

As Mr McEnroe once famously said “are you serious?”.

So, in the middle of a massive pandemic when HM Government were (we hope) pulling out all the stops to get us through it, one company, who just happened to have had strong connections with a former Tory PM just so happened to be able to arrange TEN meetings with Treasury officials?

Yet you appear to be under the misapprehension that such access would have been granted to any other company had they requested it!

Never mind the sunlit uplands where Unicorns dance and prance, I think that you are in the domain where cumulus and stratus exist along with hoarded of cuculus Canopus ??

 

[Knutsfordian]

there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies.


“there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies”.

As Mr McEnroe once famously said “are you serious?”.

So, in the middle of a massive pandemic when HM Government were (we hope) pulling out all the stops to get us through it, one company, who just happened to have had strong connections with a former Tory PM just so happened to be able to arrange TEN meetings with Treasury officials?

Yet you appear to be under the misapprehension that such access would have been granted to any other company had they requested it!

Never mind the sunlit uplands where Unicorns dance and prance, I think that you are in the domain where cumulus and stratus exist along with hoarded of cuculus Canopus ??

That any former PM should use his influence to arrange so many meetings (as I have already said) is bizarre - but as of yet you have found no crime !! There might be one, but until it's found all this bluster is just that - bluster with no substance !!

One true point you raise is that it is unlikely that any other company without Cameron would have had this level of access - but that's why ex-ministers are in demand as lobbyists. I think there is already a 2-year rule preventing ex ministers from exploiting their positions, but no doubt that this will come under further scrutiny.

Away from this immediate issue - why do you think Facebook pay Nick Clegg a small fortune for his none role, or David Milliband for his role in International Rescue ?? I may be doing these guys a disservice, but I suspect it's not purely about their talents. I am sure there are many other examples too

 

[James Wood]

That any former PM should use his influence to arrange so many meetings (as I have already said) is bizarre - but as of yet you have found no crime !! There might be one, but until it's found all this bluster is just that - bluster with no substance !!

One true point you raise is that it is unlikely that any other company without Cameron would have had this level of access - but that's why ex-ministers are in demand as lobbyists. I think there is already a 2-year rule preventing ex ministers from exploiting their positions, but no doubt that this will come under further scrutiny.

Away from this immediate issue - why do you think Facebook pay Nick Clegg a small fortune for his none role, or David Milliband for his role in International Rescue ?? I may be doing these guys a disservice, but I suspect it's not purely about their talents. I am sure there are many other examples too

“Gee Mr Tracy. I never new that you employed a former leader of the Labour Party.....

Is Virgil and the rest of the boys aware of this?

Mind you, it’s a good job that you haven’t got Boris on board. He’d only be interested in trying to shag Lady Penelope.” ???

 

[James Wood]

That any former PM should use his influence to arrange so many meetings (as I have already said) is bizarre - but as of yet you have found no crime !! There might be one, but until it's found all this bluster is just that - bluster with no substance !!

One true point you raise is that it is unlikely that any other company without Cameron would have had this level of access - but that's why ex-ministers are in demand as lobbyists. I think there is already a 2-year rule preventing ex ministers from exploiting their positions, but no doubt that this will come under further scrutiny.

Away from this immediate issue - why do you think Facebook pay Nick Clegg a small fortune for his none role, or David Milliband for his role in International Rescue ?? I may be doing these guys a disservice, but I suspect it's not purely about their talents. I am sure there are many other examples too

That any former PM should use his influence to arrange so many meetings (as I have already said) is bizarre - but as of yet you have found no crime !! There might be one, but until it's found all this bluster is just that - bluster with no substance !!

One true point you raise is that it is unlikely that any other company without Cameron would have had this level of access - but that's why ex-ministers are in demand as lobbyists. I think there is already a 2-year rule preventing ex ministers from exploiting their positions, but no doubt that this will come under further scrutiny.

Away from this immediate issue - why do you think Facebook pay Nick Clegg a small fortune for his none role, or David Milliband for his role in International Rescue ?? I may be doing these guys a disservice, but I suspect it's not purely about their talents. I am sure there are many other examples too

 

[James Wood]

“Gee Mr Tracy. I never new that you employed a former leader of the Labour Party.....

Is Virgil and the rest of the boys aware of this?

Mind you, it’s a good job that you haven’t got Boris on board. He’d only be interested in trying to shag Lady Penelope.” ???

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

?????

 

[James Wood]

So despite agreeing to meet with Greensill 10 times - there is no evidence that Treasury officials gave anything to Greensill above and beyond that being made available to all other companies. So exactly what is the charge here? Wasting police/treasury/civil service time? That's why I am saying that there needs to be a crime identified if any of this is to stick - and if there is a crime then punish the villains !

We agree that lobbying has been going on for time immemorial and that sometimes it is for good reasons - "Lobbying and trying to influence government decisions predates any parliamentary democracy and was just as prevalent in any Labour government as any Conservative one - isn't that what the Unions do by paying for Labour's election expenses and sponsoring MPs? So this whole murky business of who is exerting influence, and when, is a matter of concern and debate but not necessarily every instance is an incidence of corruption."

Where we disagree is that I think Starmer is another one of his opposition and bluster charges without any evidence to back it up. Unless he can find the crime he's just making himself look a useless idiot - and there are already plenty of those in the Labour Party - which goes back to my criticisms about their approach and lack of talent. They have too many tub thumpers and not enough leaders and strategists. Even when given a good opportunity to cause the Conservatives some pain, Labour are putting the wrong ammunition in the gun and firing blanks !!

Crime?

I’ll just leave this here shall I?

 

[Knutsfordian]

Crime?

I’ll just leave this here shall I?

View attachment 2115

But Cameron isn't in public office any more.............

 

[James Wood]

But Cameron isn't in public office any more.............

Who says that I was talking about the dead pig shagger?

 

[Knutsfordian]

and isn't that the whole problem with Labour's message - just who are you talking about ???

 

[Alan M]

Lobbying per se is not at issue, though it needs to be transparent and properly regulated, which the current legislation (as passed under Cameron) fails to achieve. However, when lobbying is done for personal gain (Cameron stood to gain over £2m personally if his efforts on behalf of Greensill were successful) it is plainly wrong. The fact that he did not succeed should not be seen as some sort of absolution.

A Johnson enquiry with very limited terms of reference will undoubtably conclude that Cameron shouldn't have done what he did and that the rules need to be toughened. Johnson will then say "Look - we've investigated it, all is now well", and nothing will happen. It will of course ignore any present-day issues relating to cronyism, corruption, sleaze or whatever you want to call it, in relation to the likes of Hancock and Jenrick, and the many issues around the awarding of contracts during the height of the pandemic, because the govt still doesn't believe in transparency and still considers itself above such things as the Nolan Principles.

 

[Knutsfordian]

If Labour really want to make a difference then the first thing they need to do is find some talent. Then develop policies and businesses that will change the fabric of what we are as a country and on which they can then build platforms to improve wages, eradicate poverty and so on. It needs real vision and practical actions that people can see the benefit of, instead of grand gestures and theories that are quickly consigned to the bin.

Britons fury as MP boasts Philip's funeral chance to go shopping

LABOUR MP Charlotte Nicols sparked outrage after boasting how she used the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral yesterday as an opportunity to go shopping.

www.express.co.uk

I know this is from the Express but it shows a growing picture of Labour's lack of talent. Add to this a poor display by Rachel Reeves on Marr yesterday and numerous incidents where Labour MPs have not exactly covered themselves in glory and it all starts to add up. I keep banging on about it - but Labour need to get their own house in order first if they want to be taken seriously.

 

[Knutsfordian]

Lobbying per se is not at issue, though it needs to be transparent and properly regulated, which the current legislation (as passed under Cameron) fails to achieve. However, when lobbying is done for personal gain (Cameron stood to gain over £2m personally if his efforts on behalf of Greensill were successful) it is plainly wrong. The fact that he did not succeed should not be seen as some sort of absolution.

A Johnson enquiry with very limited terms of reference will undoubtably conclude that Cameron shouldn't have done what he did and that the rules need to be toughened. Johnson will then say "Look - we've investigated it, all is now well", and nothing will happen. It will of course ignore any present-day issues relating to cronyism, corruption, sleaze or whatever you want to call it, in relation to the likes of Hancock and Jenrick, and the many issues around the awarding of contracts during the height of the pandemic, because the govt still doesn't believe in transparency and still considers itself above such things as the Nolan Principles.

I might be an outrider on this issue but I believe the vast majority of our politicians and public servants are decent and honest and try their best to hold up to the principles that being in public service brings with it. There are exceptions of course and where such incidents are identified the culprits should be dealt with in accordance with the law. If we set out with the premise that all our politicians and public servants are dishonorable and deceitful, then we really have a problem with democracy, Labour are treading a very dangerous path here. In trying to discredit the government, they are laying out a blanket covering all politicians, that discredits everyone, and causes the electorate to distrust all politicians - and ultimately this will rebound on themselves. We see another attempt this morning to get a vote in parliament to accuse Boris Johnson of lying (which Starmer hasn't signed up to). Lyndsey Hoyle needs to take control of this issue and make it quite clear that he does not uphold lying in Parliament and where facts are not properly presented MPs should be called to account. But if we don't get away from calling everyone into disrepute the future looks bleak.

I agree with AM that (in an ideal world) lobbying would be/should be transparent and properly regulated but I suspect it's an absolute minefield. To what extent are everyone's personal relationships a form of lobbying with friends, family, work colleagues, acquaintances all involved. A lot will still depend on the honesty and character of individuals to do the "right thing" and whilst that Cameron's lack of success should not be seen as some sort of absolution, it does also indicate that someone did have the weight of conscience to do the "right thing" in the end and that has to be a positive outcome.

 

[Andy]

Britons fury as MP boasts Philip's funeral chance to go shopping

LABOUR MP Charlotte Nicols sparked outrage after boasting how she used the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral yesterday as an opportunity to go shopping.

www.express.co.uk

I know this is from the Express but it shows a growing picture of Labour's lack of talent. Add to this a poor display by Rachel Reeves on Marr yesterday and numerous incidents where Labour MPs have not exactly covered themselves in glory and it all starts to add up. I keep banging on about it - but Labour need to get their own house in order first if they want to be taken seriously.

She’s an awful MP. It’s known around town that when constituents email her about a range of things. Not one gets a reply from her.

She was parachuted in to a safe northern seat, and couldn’t give a hoot about the people there.

 

[Knutsfordian]

I might be an outrider on this issue but I believe the vast majority of our politicians and public servants are decent and honest and try their best to hold up to the principles that being in public service brings with it. There are exceptions of course and where such incidents are identified the culprits should be dealt with in accordance with the law. If we set out with the premise that all our politicians and public servants are dishonorable and deceitful, then we really have a problem with democracy, Labour are treading a very dangerous path here. In trying to discredit the government, they are laying out a blanket covering all politicians, that discredits everyone, and causes the electorate to distrust all politicians - and ultimately this will rebound on themselves. We see another attempt this morning to get a vote in parliament to accuse Boris Johnson of lying (which Starmer hasn't signed up to). Lyndsey Hoyle needs to take control of this issue and make it quite clear that he does not uphold lying in Parliament and where facts are not properly presented MPs should be called to account. But if we don't get away from calling everyone into disrepute the future looks bleak.

I agree with AM that (in an ideal world) lobbying would be/should be transparent and properly regulated but I suspect it's an absolute minefield. To what extent are everyone's personal relationships a form of lobbying with friends, family, work colleagues, acquaintances all involved. A lot will still depend on the honesty and character of individuals to do the "right thing" and whilst that Cameron's lack of success should not be seen as some sort of absolution, it does also indicate that someone did have the weight of conscience to do the "right thing" in the end and that has to be a positive outcome.

Just seen Tony Blair on Sky News - have to say it was very measured response and more in line with what's written above than any ringing endorsement of Labour's current policy.

 

[James Wood]

Britons fury as MP boasts Philip's funeral chance to go shopping

LABOUR MP Charlotte Nicols sparked outrage after boasting how she used the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral yesterday as an opportunity to go shopping.

www.express.co.uk

I know this is from the Express but it shows a growing picture of Labour's lack of talent. Add to this a poor display by Rachel Reeves on Marr yesterday and numerous incidents where Labour MPs have not exactly covered themselves in glory and it all starts to add up. I keep banging on about it - but Labour need to get their own house in order first if they want to be taken seriously.

Why shouldn’t she go shopping?
After all, the U.K. isn’t a police state (well not yet) so surely people are free to do what they want to? Or do they have to kow-tow to the Monarchy and establishment?

At least she can’t be accused of being a hypocrite - which no doubt the right wing media would have lambasted her for had she come out with some faux, insincere statement about the death of the DoE

 

[James Wood]

Why shouldn’t she go shopping?
After all, the U.K. isn’t a police state (well not yet) so surely people are free to do what they want to? Or do they have to kow-tow to the Monarchy and establishment?

At least she can’t be accused of being a hypocrite - which no doubt the right wing media would have lambasted her for had she come out with some faux, insincere statement about the death of the DoE

Oh, and before you ask. I was painting our garden fences last Saturday afternoon - a far better use of my time than watching the funeral of someone I didn’t know and frankly couldn’t give two hoots about.

But I did show some respect in that the fence is now a fine shade of black! ?

 

[James Wood]

Lobbying per se is not at issue, though it needs to be transparent and properly regulated, which the current legislation (as passed under Cameron) fails to achieve. However, when lobbying is done for personal gain (Cameron stood to gain over £2m personally if his efforts on behalf of Greensill were successful) it is plainly wrong. The fact that he did not succeed should not be seen as some sort of absolution.

A Johnson enquiry with very limited terms of reference will undoubtably conclude that Cameron shouldn't have done what he did and that the rules need to be toughened. Johnson will then say "Look - we've investigated it, all is now well", and nothing will happen. It will of course ignore any present-day issues relating to cronyism, corruption, sleaze or whatever you want to call it, in relation to the likes of Hancock and Jenrick, and the many issues around the awarding of contracts during the height of the pandemic, because the govt still doesn't believe in transparency and still considers itself above such things as the Nolan Principles.

More Tory sleaze - nice little chats between Johnson and James Dyson. Who just happens to be - checks notes - a major Tory Party donor.

Who would have guessed it eh?

#differentdaysametorysleaze

 

[James Wood]

More Tory sleaze - nice little chats between Johnson and James Dyson. Who just happens to be - checks notes - a major Tory Party donor.

Who would have guessed it eh?

#differentdaysametorysleaze

I wonder if the manufacturers of the Henry Hoover had Johnson’s personal mobile number?

 

[Knutsfordian]

Why shouldn’t she go shopping?
After all, the U.K. isn’t a police state (well not yet) so surely people are free to do what they want to? Or do they have to kow-tow to the Monarchy and establishment?

At least she can’t be accused of being a hypocrite - which no doubt the right wing media would have lambasted her for had she come out with some faux, insincere statement about the death of the DoE

No reason why she shouldn't - and then keep her motivations to herself ! Just stupid for an MP who swears an allegiance to the crown to then make happy public statements whilst the queen's consort is being buried. It is just in extraordinary bad taste and a poor use of the public platform she enjoys as an MP, which is why it shows a complete lack of talent and whit.