ION Liz Truss is all over the air waves underlining just how unfit to be PM she was. Oh, and promoting her Deep State theory, and support for Trump too.
ION Liz Truss is all over the air waves underlining just how unfit to be PM she was. Oh, and promoting her Deep State theory, and support for Trump too.
An examination of how someone with her world view and lack of ability managed to gain the support of the majority of the Tory Party and the media would be instructive. Unfortunately this would entail questions about the funding of the Tory party and the media that no journalist with an ounce of self-preservation is likely to ask.
ION Liz Truss is all over the air waves underlining just how unfit to be PM she was. Oh, and promoting her Deep State theory, and support for Trump too.
An examination of how someone with her world view and lack of ability managed to gain the support of the majority of the Tory Party and the media would be instructive. Unfortunately this would entail questions about the funding of the Tory party and the media that no journalist with an ounce of self-preservation is likely to ask.
Liz the Delusional Lettuce is receiving a fair amount of criticism:
Today, she's warning us all of the imminent arrival of the brutal *health police* if Wishi-Washi's smoking ban thingy gets the go-ahead.
FWIW, I think the smoking/vaping ban is a Good Idea in theory, but, I suspect, unworkable in practice. Prof Chris Whitty thinks otherwise, but what does he know?
(IRONY)
Meanwhile, a little crumb of comfort for poor Wishi-Washi, as the unspeakable NatCons encounter difficulty in finding somewhere to hold their hatefest:
It sounds very much as if she's trying to cosy up to Reform. Not sure where that would ead her, but any move to get Farage on board would split the Conservatives.
It sounds very much as if she's trying to cosy up to Reform. Not sure where that would ead her, but any move to get Farage on board would split the Conservatives.
Maybe she is, but The Garbage seems to have thrown in his lot with the NatCons. I'm a bit confused as to that grouping relates to Deform, as all these neo-fascists appear to be just as horrible as each other - IOW, what's to choose between them?
I think the tories are already split, but they're becoming even more fissiparous as each day passes...
I wonder if our non-involvement in the colonialisation of Rwanda is anything to do with Kuddly Paul's apparent friendliness?
From my sources on the ground in Rwanda (really), Rwanda is complicated (where isn't?) - in recent years not only have they joined the Commonwealth, but they've also very enthusiastically taken up cricket.
At least some of the apparent Anglophilia genuinely seems to be, er, genuine. Some will be performative. The trick is sorting one from the other of course.
You might be closer than you think with that comment, though another way of putting it might be that it's in part a reaction to who they *were* colonised by (Germany then Belgium).
I wonder if our non-involvement in the colonialisation of Rwanda is anything to do with Kuddly Paul's apparent friendliness?
From my sources on the ground in Rwanda (really), Rwanda is complicated (where isn't?) - in recent years not only have they joined the Commonwealth, but they've also very enthusiastically taken up cricket.
At least some of the apparent Anglophilia genuinely seems to be, er, genuine. Some will be performative. The trick is sorting one from the other of course.
You might be closer than you think with that comment, though another way of putting it might be that it's in part a reaction to who they *were* colonised by (Germany then Belgium).
Yes, and the extra £50m we are apparently giving Kagame is no doubt something to do with it, too.
Has Wishi-Washi still not noticed the letters MUG branded on his forehead?
Yes, and the extra £50m we are apparently giving Kagame is no doubt something to do with it, too.
Has Wishi-Washi still not noticed the letters MUG branded on his forehead?
I meant away from the government, and predating any of this to be honest. Arguably the Anglophilia is what got the foot in the door for the policy - joining the Commonwealth happened when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister for example.
Yes, and the extra £50m we are apparently giving Kagame is no doubt something to do with it, too.
Has Wishi-Washi still not noticed the letters MUG branded on his forehead?
I meant away from the government, and predating any of this to be honest. Arguably the Anglophilia is what got the foot in the door for the policy - joining the Commonwealth happened when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister for example.
ION Liz Truss is all over the air waves underlining just how unfit to be PM she was. Oh, and promoting her Deep State theory, and support for Trump too.
An examination of how someone with her world view and lack of ability managed to gain the support of the majority of the Tory Party and the media would be instructive. Unfortunately this would entail questions about the funding of the Tory party and the media that no journalist with an ounce of self-preservation is likely to ask.
Liz the Delusional Lettuce is receiving a fair amount of criticism:
That's really not what I'm talking about. Her ideas were self-evidently bad, and her stay in the FO had plenty of material for someone who wanted to write about her delusions[*], yet there was a period of time when the media took her seriously.
Firstly, the smoking ban has been approved at its first reading, but NOT by many tories. 57 voted against, and over 100 abstained.
Secondly, the lunatic Rwanda bill has again been defeated in the Lords, though it does seem likely that it will become law later this week. I don't know if they've found a willing airline yet, so it could be a while before the 300 victims are sent to the Kigali Holiday Kamp (at a cost to this country about £540million).
The deterrent hasn't really taken effect yet, with over 500 more refugees crossing the Channel last weekend.
Secondly, the lunatic Rwanda bill has again been defeated in the Lords, though it does seem likely that it will become law later this week. I don't know if they've found a willing airline
They've been in 'talks' with a 'charter airline', which happens to be a financial structure that runs planes with Royal Air Force insignia:
Secondly, the lunatic Rwanda bill has again been defeated in the Lords, though it does seem likely that it will become law later this week. I don't know if they've found a willing airline
They've been in 'talks' with a 'charter airline', which happens to be a financial structure that runs planes with Royal Air Force insignia:
I don't think it's actually funny that a foreign news team couldn't be bothered to identify a female Prime Minister, even if that Prime Minister was Truss.
Oh, I took the clip as more mocking the news team who cover a major event in the UK and didn't recognise the UKs PM. Though, that would have been even less excusable had she been known for more than bizarre speeches about cheese.
If I wanted to mock the achievements of the former PM, I'd have recommended this book (rather than the book she's been promoting recently).
If one rated Prime Ministers by impact upon the UK's economy relative to time in office (and for once I think impact is the right word), I think Truss must be a contender for the top spot.
If one rated Prime Ministers by impact upon the UK's economy relative to time in office (and for once I think impact is the right word), I think Truss must be a contender for the top spot.
If I wanted to mock the achievements of the former PM, I'd have recommended this book (rather than the book she's been promoting recently).
I've seen several variations on that exact same gag in Canada, going all the way back to Pierre Trudeau in the late 1970s. But usually it was a cheap little booklet with a crappy cartoon on the cover, sold in joke shops next to the phallus-shaped pacifiers. That Truss one looks fairly up-market.
Meanwhile rumour has it that Angela Raynor put her bin out two minutes before midnight on Tuesday for the Wednesday collection, but council by-laws say it can only be out on the day of collection. The depravity!
Many of the external factors that drove the increase in inflation are now more than a year old (eg: the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and so inflation will naturally be coming down regardless of who's in government - as can be seen by falling inflation throughout Europe, US, Australasia etc. There are still higher costs imposed by the government we need to pay for - eg: the stupidity of the Truss economic policy changes, the massive costs of leaving the EU (at least, leaving the Single Market and Customs Union).
Inflation only measures prices relative to 12 months previously. It's a fairish assessment of the impact of frequent (1 or more every year) small price rises, but it can also show artificial falls when there are infrequent very large price rises as they disappear from the headline figures 12 months after the price rise. It's not unreasonable for a government to claim some credit for controlling inflation caused by the frequent small price rises. But, to claim credit for falls in inflation that are driven by external events out of their control, especially if that's simply waiting more than a year since there was a massive price increase they were responsible for, isn't reasonable.
Although this is more bizarre than the usual stories of alleged Tory malfeasance.
The bizarre part of it comes down to meeting someone on a dating site, going to their flat and getting blind drunk. Then, having put himself in the hands of someone he barely knew they took the opportunity for a bit of black mail.
At least there were no escorts abused this time.
I wonder where his money goes, when on a very generous MPs salary he doesn't have a few grand available to pay medical bills or blackmailers.
I wouldn't bet my house on the level of inflation just yet.
If things go pear-shaped in the Middle East - at least a strong possibility - it will be a case of 'you ain't seen nothing yet' with inflation. (See the premiership of Mr Heath for a precedent.)
Certain types of inflation are entirely outside the UK government's control and they deserve neither criticism for the rise nor praise for the fall. It's like judging a government on the weather.
Although this is more bizarre than the usual stories of alleged Tory malfeasance.
The bizarre part of it comes down to meeting someone on a dating site, going to their flat and getting blind drunk. Then, having put himself in the hands of someone he barely knew they took the opportunity for a bit of black mail.
At least there were no escorts abused this time.
I wonder where his money goes, when on a very generous MPs salary he doesn't have a few grand available to pay medical bills or blackmailers.
Going to emphasise again, just because he made an unwise decision that doesn’t make him responsible for the crimes committed against him. The current press environment is one of the reasons these people are vulnerable to blackmail, I think there is an argument for people who are victims of blackmail getting the right to anonymity in the same way as rape victims.
(If they are being blackmailed over a crime that they have committed that may need to be discretionary for the CPS.)
Oh yes. He made at least two unwise decisions (one to go to the flat of someone he met on a dating app, two to pay blackmail without contacting the police - possibly three, getting very drunk while in the flat of a stranger). Whether or not paying that blackmail from campaign funds was unwise or illegal is the question under investigation, much as would be the case with whether it's illegal to pay hush money to a porn star to keep quiet about something that wasn't actually illegal from campaign funds (which is a totally different case, in a different country).
Oh yes. He made at least two unwise decisions (one to go to the flat of someone he met on a dating app, two to pay blackmail without contacting the police - possibly three, getting very drunk while in the flat of a stranger). Whether or not paying that blackmail from campaign funds was unwise or illegal is the question under investigation, much as would be the case with whether it's illegal to pay hush money to a porn star to keep quiet about something that wasn't actually illegal from campaign funds (which is a totally different case, in a different country).
Wrong thread to not be party political, but I'm not being party political here.
Having known a slack handful of Westminster MPs across multiple parties (and a couple at Holyrood as well) there's very little I would be surprised by. The political atmosphere seems to magnify people's strengths and weaknesses to a frightening extent, and it seems a very lonely life to be quite honest when it comes down to it.
Not a defence, but there's got to be a more humane way of treating parliamentarians (whether London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, or wherever) than shipping them off to somewhere a fair way from home and then hothousing their characters with a load of other politicos. It leads to interesting decision making both in the capital and the constituency in far too many cases.
I wouldn't do it. It's the ones that actually do stand for election that you've got to watch!
Oh yes. He made at least two unwise decisions (one to go to the flat of someone he met on a dating app, two to pay blackmail without contacting the police - possibly three, getting very drunk while in the flat of a stranger). Whether or not paying that blackmail from campaign funds was unwise or illegal is the question under investigation, much as would be the case with whether it's illegal to pay hush money to a porn star to keep quiet about something that wasn't actually illegal from campaign funds (which is a totally different case, in a different country).
Let me put it another way, if he got raped on a drunken one night stand - would we be ok with victim blaming ? I would hope not.
The blame (if there is any, which is why there's an investigation) is in using campaign funds to pay the blackmail. There would hopefully be a separate police investigation into the events to allow a prosecution of the blackmailer for their actions.
There's a direct analogy with another recent example. It's unwise to share private information online, but not a crime nor even something that would leave someone at fault (my understanding is that sharing such images is expected on the sort of site in question). It's a crime for someone to use that for blackmail purposes, but the person being blackmailed is at the point not at fault. The question is whether in trying to satisfy the demands of the blackmailer another crime is committed - whether that's providing contact details of others, or in this case paying the blackmail from funds that have legally defined uses. Or, as I mentioned, there's nothing wrong with an affair with a porn star (assuming that's fully consensual, of course) but there's a valid question of whether a crime has been committed in using ring fenced campaign funds to pay them to keep quiet about it.
I wouldn't say that someone being the innocent victim of a crime entirely excuses them from choices they subsequently make to (allegedly) commit a crime to pay off those who have acted criminally.
Certain types of inflation are entirely outside the UK government's control and they deserve neither criticism for the rise nor praise for the fall. It's like judging a government on the weather.
Everyone knows that the weather is actually a Brexit benefit.
Certain types of inflation are entirely outside the UK government's control and they deserve neither criticism for the rise nor praise for the fall. It's like judging a government on the weather.
Everyone knows that the weather is actually a Brexit benefit.
Well the weather has been bloody awful recently. What can I say.
Certain types of inflation are entirely outside the UK government's control and they deserve neither criticism for the rise nor praise for the fall. It's like judging a government on the weather.
Everyone knows that the weather is actually a Brexit benefit.
Well the weather has been bloody awful recently. What can I say.
The blame (if there is any, which is why there's an investigation) is in using campaign funds to pay the blackmail. There would hopefully be a separate police investigation into the events to allow a prosecution of the blackmailer for their actions.
There's a direct analogy with another recent example. It's unwise to share private information online, but not a crime nor even something that would leave someone at fault (my understanding is that sharing such images is expected on the sort of site in question). It's a crime for someone to use that for blackmail purposes, but the person being blackmailed is at the point not at fault. The question is whether in trying to satisfy the demands of the blackmailer another crime is committed - whether that's providing contact details of others, or in this case paying the blackmail from funds that have legally defined uses. Or, as I mentioned, there's nothing wrong with an affair with a porn star (assuming that's fully consensual, of course) but there's a valid question of whether a crime has been committed in using ring fenced campaign funds to pay them to keep quiet about it.
I wouldn't say that someone being the innocent victim of a crime entirely excuses them from choices they subsequently make to (allegedly) commit a crime to pay off those who have acted criminally.
Yes, the analogy with the case of Mr Wragg is fairly clear. One would hope that supposedly intelligent beings such as MPs would have the sagacity not to embroil themselves in a situation which might lead to blackmail, but hey - they're just fallible human beings like the rest of us...and (without wishing to act as Devil's Advocate) I still think that it's possible for panic to set in, for wisdom to thereupon fly out of the window, leading to potentially criminal acts.
Although this is more bizarre than the usual stories of alleged Tory malfeasance.
There's got to be a whole lot of story behind this claim, and it seems likely that ending up "trapped in your apartment late at night with some unsavory people who want 6000 quid to let you go" involved a number of prior choices that were unwise at best.
The biggest definite fault seems to be with the local party who said "you don't have to pay that back".
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
Let me correct that for you: there is far more scope for scandal if you have power.
As I recall, only one party organized piss-ups in Downing Street while the rest of us were in lockdown and the bodies piled high in their thousands.
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
Evidence?
There's a lot of periods we can look at. Say '79-'97. '97-'10 and '10-'24. The data does not agree with your assertion.
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
Let me correct that for you: there is far more scope for scandal if you have power.
As I recall, only one party organized piss-ups in Downing Street while the rest of us were in lockdown and the bodies piled high in their thousands.
I don't recall seeing bodies piled high. The so called parties were the fault of civil servants
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
Evidence?
There's a lot of periods we can look at. Say '79-'97. '97-'10 and '10-'24. The data does not agree with your assertion.
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
Let me correct that for you: there is far more scope for scandal if you have power.
As I recall, only one party organized piss-ups in Downing Street while the rest of us were in lockdown and the bodies piled high in their thousands.
I don't recall seeing bodies piled high. The so called parties were the fault of civil servants
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
Evidence?
There's a lot of periods we can look at. Say '79-'97. '97-'10 and '10-'24. The data does not agree with your assertion.
As of January 12, 2023, COVID-19 has been responsible for 202,157 deaths in the UK overall.
I don't think they were all actually piled up together in a heap, though. Figures of speech escape some people, and a couple of hundred thousand dead don't matter if you're not one of the bodies in question...
As of January 12, 2023, COVID-19 has been responsible for 202,157 deaths in the UK overall.
I don't think they were all actually piled up together in a heap, though. Figures of speech escape some people, and a couple of hundred thousand dead don't matter if you're not one of the bodies in question...
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
Let me correct that for you: there is far more scope for scandal if you have power.
As I recall, only one party organized piss-ups in Downing Street while the rest of us were in lockdown and the bodies piled high in their thousands.
I don't recall seeing bodies piled high. The so called parties were the fault of civil servants
The Conservative Party has known about this for over three months. I think this explains why they have been so keen to keep Angela Rayner in the public eye, so that they can maintain the appearance that BOTH parties are equally enmeshed in scandal.
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
and that would probably be true. There is far more scope for scandal if you have the largest number of MPs
Evidence?
There's a lot of periods we can look at. Say '79-'97. '97-'10 and '10-'24. The data does not agree with your assertion.
But then you don't care, do you?
What is your evidence that I don't care ?
Your second statement is answered by your first.
A full explanation would be useful because I don't agree with you
Comments
You'd probably have to compare his relations with the UK to his relations with Germany and Belgium.
Nah. He just saw us as a source of easy money. I don't blame him.
That thought occurred to me as well, given that Rwanda was one of the parts of Africa we didn't pillage...
Kagame is no fool. The same cannot be said of our government...
An examination of how someone with her world view and lack of ability managed to gain the support of the majority of the Tory Party and the media would be instructive. Unfortunately this would entail questions about the funding of the Tory party and the media that no journalist with an ounce of self-preservation is likely to ask.
Liz the Delusional Lettuce is receiving a fair amount of criticism:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/16/liz-truss-save-the-west-delusions
Today, she's warning us all of the imminent arrival of the brutal *health police* if Wishi-Washi's smoking ban thingy gets the go-ahead.
FWIW, I think the smoking/vaping ban is a Good Idea in theory, but, I suspect, unworkable in practice. Prof Chris Whitty thinks otherwise, but what does he know?
(IRONY)
Meanwhile, a little crumb of comfort for poor Wishi-Washi, as the unspeakable NatCons encounter difficulty in finding somewhere to hold their hatefest:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/16/belgian-mayor-natcon-conference-braverman-farage-brussels
My heart bleeds for poor Niggle the Garbage, and the lovely but misused Cruella, being so heartlessly persecuted by evil communists.
Interesting times, eh? Especially with The End Of The World possible at any moment...
Maybe she is, but The Garbage seems to have thrown in his lot with the NatCons. I'm a bit confused as to that grouping relates to Deform, as all these neo-fascists appear to be just as horrible as each other - IOW, what's to choose between them?
I think the tories are already split, but they're becoming even more fissiparous as each day passes...
From my sources on the ground in Rwanda (really), Rwanda is complicated (where isn't?) - in recent years not only have they joined the Commonwealth, but they've also very enthusiastically taken up cricket.
At least some of the apparent Anglophilia genuinely seems to be, er, genuine. Some will be performative. The trick is sorting one from the other of course.
You might be closer than you think with that comment, though another way of putting it might be that it's in part a reaction to who they *were* colonised by (Germany then Belgium).
Yes, and the extra £50m we are apparently giving Kagame is no doubt something to do with it, too.
Has Wishi-Washi still not noticed the letters MUG branded on his forehead?
I meant away from the government, and predating any of this to be honest. Arguably the Anglophilia is what got the foot in the door for the policy - joining the Commonwealth happened when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister for example.
Fair enough, and point taken.
That's really not what I'm talking about. Her ideas were self-evidently bad, and her stay in the FO had plenty of material for someone who wanted to write about her delusions[*], yet there was a period of time when the media took her seriously.
[*] She'd even put her name to a book ffs.
What did she do (and when) to make the gods turn against her?
Firstly, the smoking ban has been approved at its first reading, but NOT by many tories. 57 voted against, and over 100 abstained.
Secondly, the lunatic Rwanda bill has again been defeated in the Lords, though it does seem likely that it will become law later this week. I don't know if they've found a willing airline yet, so it could be a while before the 300 victims are sent to the Kigali Holiday Kamp (at a cost to this country about £540million).
The deterrent hasn't really taken effect yet, with over 500 more refugees crossing the Channel last weekend.
They've been in 'talks' with a 'charter airline', which happens to be a financial structure that runs planes with Royal Air Force insignia:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/apr/12/rwanda-deportation-flights-airtanker-charter-airline-talks
I suspect the government haven't fully thought through the liability they are taking on, and the reasons an actual airline doesn't want to do it.
Yes, there was a piece in the Guardian a few days ago about the talks you mention, but it had slipped my memory.
If I wanted to mock the achievements of the former PM, I'd have recommended this book (rather than the book she's been promoting recently).
World-beating™, one might say...
🥬
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/apr/17/uk-inflation-falls-bank-of-england-interest-rates
I've seen several variations on that exact same gag in Canada, going all the way back to Pierre Trudeau in the late 1970s. But usually it was a cheap little booklet with a crappy cartoon on the cover, sold in joke shops next to the phallus-shaped pacifiers. That Truss one looks fairly up-market.
Meanwhile rumour has it that Angela Raynor put her bin out two minutes before midnight on Tuesday for the Wednesday collection, but council by-laws say it can only be out on the day of collection. The depravity!
In other words prices are still rising at higher rates than they have been for most of the last 2 decades.
Tory MP accused of fraudulent use of campaign funds
Although this is more bizarre than the usual stories of alleged Tory malfeasance.
Inflation only measures prices relative to 12 months previously. It's a fairish assessment of the impact of frequent (1 or more every year) small price rises, but it can also show artificial falls when there are infrequent very large price rises as they disappear from the headline figures 12 months after the price rise. It's not unreasonable for a government to claim some credit for controlling inflation caused by the frequent small price rises. But, to claim credit for falls in inflation that are driven by external events out of their control, especially if that's simply waiting more than a year since there was a massive price increase they were responsible for, isn't reasonable.
At least there were no escorts abused this time.
I wonder where his money goes, when on a very generous MPs salary he doesn't have a few grand available to pay medical bills or blackmailers.
If things go pear-shaped in the Middle East - at least a strong possibility - it will be a case of 'you ain't seen nothing yet' with inflation. (See the premiership of Mr Heath for a precedent.)
Certain types of inflation are entirely outside the UK government's control and they deserve neither criticism for the rise nor praise for the fall. It's like judging a government on the weather.
Going to emphasise again, just because he made an unwise decision that doesn’t make him responsible for the crimes committed against him. The current press environment is one of the reasons these people are vulnerable to blackmail, I think there is an argument for people who are victims of blackmail getting the right to anonymity in the same way as rape victims.
(If they are being blackmailed over a crime that they have committed that may need to be discretionary for the CPS.)
Wrong thread to not be party political, but I'm not being party political here.
Having known a slack handful of Westminster MPs across multiple parties (and a couple at Holyrood as well) there's very little I would be surprised by. The political atmosphere seems to magnify people's strengths and weaknesses to a frightening extent, and it seems a very lonely life to be quite honest when it comes down to it.
Not a defence, but there's got to be a more humane way of treating parliamentarians (whether London, Edinburgh, Cardiff, or wherever) than shipping them off to somewhere a fair way from home and then hothousing their characters with a load of other politicos. It leads to interesting decision making both in the capital and the constituency in far too many cases.
I wouldn't do it. It's the ones that actually do stand for election that you've got to watch!
Let me put it another way, if he got raped on a drunken one night stand - would we be ok with victim blaming ? I would hope not.
There's a direct analogy with another recent example. It's unwise to share private information online, but not a crime nor even something that would leave someone at fault (my understanding is that sharing such images is expected on the sort of site in question). It's a crime for someone to use that for blackmail purposes, but the person being blackmailed is at the point not at fault. The question is whether in trying to satisfy the demands of the blackmailer another crime is committed - whether that's providing contact details of others, or in this case paying the blackmail from funds that have legally defined uses. Or, as I mentioned, there's nothing wrong with an affair with a porn star (assuming that's fully consensual, of course) but there's a valid question of whether a crime has been committed in using ring fenced campaign funds to pay them to keep quiet about it.
I wouldn't say that someone being the innocent victim of a crime entirely excuses them from choices they subsequently make to (allegedly) commit a crime to pay off those who have acted criminally.
Everyone knows that the weather is actually a Brexit benefit.
Well the weather has been bloody awful recently. What can I say.
Yes, the analogy with the case of Mr Wragg is fairly clear. One would hope that supposedly intelligent beings such as MPs would have the sagacity not to embroil themselves in a situation which might lead to blackmail, but hey - they're just fallible human beings like the rest of us...and (without wishing to act as Devil's Advocate) I still think that it's possible for panic to set in, for wisdom to thereupon fly out of the window, leading to potentially criminal acts.
There's got to be a whole lot of story behind this claim, and it seems likely that ending up "trapped in your apartment late at night with some unsavory people who want 6000 quid to let you go" involved a number of prior choices that were unwise at best.
The biggest definite fault seems to be with the local party who said "you don't have to pay that back".
A very credible theory.
They have no hope of convincing the public that they're not mired in sleaze but if they can sell the everyone's as bad as each other line, it suppresses the vote and works in their favour.
AFZ
Let me correct that for you: there is far more scope for scandal if you have power.
As I recall, only one party organized piss-ups in Downing Street while the rest of us were in lockdown and the bodies piled high in their thousands.
Evidence?
There's a lot of periods we can look at. Say '79-'97. '97-'10 and '10-'24. The data does not agree with your assertion.
But then you don't care, do you?
What is your evidence that I don't care ?
Your second statement is answered by your first.
As of January 12, 2023, COVID-19 has been responsible for 202,157 deaths in the UK overall.
I don't think they were all actually piled up together in a heap, though. Figures of speech escape some people, and a couple of hundred thousand dead don't matter if you're not one of the bodies in question...
A full explanation would be useful because I don't agree with you