TiRed
Free MemberRecall she resigned because she misled MPs via a briefing that was incorrect and may have been a civil servant error.
Not really. Much like Cummings, it was just the final straw, her resignation was mostly about Windrush
I could be mis-remembering, but I think Rudd was put in a difficult position because it was May as home secretary who caused the Windrush issue and then went on to be PM.
They both had parts in it. Luckily we now have Patel in charge so no way anything horrible is ever going to happen to anyone.
ac282
Full MemberI could be mis-remembering, but I think Rudd was put in a difficult position because it was May as home secretary who caused the Windrush issue and then went on to be PM.
Yup, a big part of it was taking the fall for her boss who sailed on oblivious to her next disaster in a career of failing upwards.
I suspect we’ll be looking back very shortly and regarding Hancocks approach as both cautious and sensible in comparison, difficult to believe though that presently is
Yup.
At the risk of repeating myself, "be careful what you wish for." Cf. Cameron > May > Johnson.
The tories haven't got shut of someone in favour of someone else better ever, in a decade of being in power. If someone gets the boot it's because they've found an even bigger ****.
You couldn’t make him/it up. Light relief?
* (deleted double-posted Michael Spicer video)
It really feels like we’re living in a ‘Little Britain’ script, if co-written by Charlie Brooker.
The tories haven’t got shut of someone in favour of someone else better ever,
Apart from when they replaced Thatcher with Major.
Not a fan of either but would take Major over Thatcher any day.
Bought a paper for the first time in 5 years, very surprised how much stick the Sunday Times gave dumbojo and Hancock.
Maybe there is hope.
Not that much hope, I am not sure many of the new Tory voters are reading the Sunday Times.
Sadly, I think it is the Torygraph (if my Brexit voting mother is anything to go by). I try leaving the Observer there, but it just gets recycled.
I think remainer Tories read the Times, Leaver Tories read the telegraph. The Telegraph's relationship with the Conservative party is not dissimilar to the the relationship between Fox News and the Republican party.
Not that much hope, I am not sure many of the new Tory voters are reading the Sunday Times.
Sadly, I think it is the Torygraph
Times readers and Telegraph readers are who the Conservative party like to think their voters are - and who they govern for
The Sun, Star, Express and Mail have more readers - and you don't even have to be buying the papers. Their reach and influence comes from just sitting on the newsstands having a headline in large print. Thats is all thats required of them to deliver the volume of votes the tories need and to let them know those paper's proprietors have the party over a barrel
Facebook probably has more "readers" than any of that.
Many, many, impressionable, credulous readers, utterly unarmed against the weaponised media tactics being brought to bear on them.
Fair point macca, in the US the national enquirer used to stay out of politics and culture wars (much like the Sunday Sport in the UK) Then one of Trumps mates bought it around the time of Trump announcing his candidacy and the 'paper' got behind Trump.
It was all about news stand visibility and nearly every checkout counter became a totem pole of Trump branding. With the red tops there is no content and never context, there is only ever a headline. It's the crudest form of advertising.
very surprised how much stick the Sunday Times gave dumbojo and Hancock.
Many Tories are deeply unhappy with Johnson. His suggested tax hikes and government spending commitments horrifies many Thatcherite Tories.
One former Tory MP described Johnson like a Roman emperor offering bread and circus to his people, a fair analogy imo.
Whilst Johnson remains popular with voters however they remain mostly quiet.
And for many having a committed ruthless Thatcherite like Sajid Javid back in the Cabinet will come as some relief.
I think when we know the full story Hancock may turn our to be one of the most corrupt politicians of recent times. The list of his personal contacts who benefited from government contracts is pretty long and when you add in his mistresses friends and family likely to get longer. Does anyone actually believe the relationship started in May of this year? The fact that on the surface he came across as a relatively non threatening, slightly hapless but well meaning compared to most Tories blinded many of us.
I think what we'll mostly see is that he was inept and grasping when it came to the corruption side. In terms of Britain's industrialised and pretty much normalised corruption, it's actually not that big but it's the equivalent of getting caught with your hand in the till
The fact that on the surface he came across as a relatively non threatening, slightly hapless but well meaning compared to most Tories blinded many of us.
He's reminded me in recent months of Buckles character in Line of Duty for that very reason. A product of a failing administration rather than some genius villain.
I think when we know the full story Hancock may turn our to be one of the most corrupt politicians of recent times.
As if we'd ever find out the full story!
Johnson now claiming he sacked Hancock (sort of) & saying he personally approved lovers job
No10 has described the appointment process as 'Fair and Transparent'
They don't seem to be able to tell anyone what this fair process is though. I think that makes it invisible rather than transparent.
They said that private e-Mail had not been used to discuss contracts, then backtracked.
These days, if they say one thing, I’m inclined to think it’s a lie, and assume the opposite.
One of the main problems with news in this country is that the BBC follows the print media.
The PPE scandal is as big a story as MPs expenses yet the BBC don't report it as the papers are not.
Corbyn AS bolx was the inverse of this.
These days, if they say one thing, I’m inclined to think it’s a lie, and assume the opposite.
And they know a week later it will all be forgotten anyway (the media/peoples attention span is no longer that that) so no point making a bigger deal of it by overly defending it. Just brushing it off with a quick like does the job.
And they know a week later it will all be forgotten anyway (the media/peoples attention span is no longer that that) so no point making a bigger deal of it by overly defending it. Just brushing it off with a quick lie does the job.
This.
I think what we’ll mostly see is that he was inept and grasping when it came to the corruption side. In terms of Britain’s industrialised and pretty much normalised corruption, it’s actually not that big but it’s the equivalent of getting caught with your hand in the till
If he hadn't been caught on camera groping her arse, he would have got away with it scot free. All he had to do was not get caught doing that. He even ****ed that bit up. Imagine what a halfway competent crook could get up to in this shambles of a government. Then realise it is 100% certain that is what is happening right now.
Two economists getting a grip with austerity and trickle down.
trickle down
Eww…
I think when we know the full story Hancock may turn our to be one of the most corrupt politicians of recent times.
I would think that when if public inquiry is allowed to look into PPE contracts, thats going to be a pretty hotly contested title.
And for that reason, I'm sure thats its remit will fall short of looking into that
There should be checks and balances in place which mean that is while in office you make a decision that you or your nearest and dearest make money from then you can be reprimanded. That would include the likes of call me Dave calling pals in Whitehall for a favour.
I knew a Labour MP in the late 70s who would receive very nice christmas hampers from E European embassies. They would be opened, admired, and put back in the post with a thank you letter. How times have changed.
I would think that when if public inquiry is allowed to look into PPE contracts, thats going to be a pretty hotly contested title.
Very much this.
But, inevitably, unfortunately.... even more so.....
And for that reason, I’m sure thats its remit will fall short of looking into that
They will fight it, emasculate it and push the 'Got Vaccines Done' three word slogan aggressively.
And enough people will swallow it.
Sigh.
How about we all email our Tory MPs and say how disgusted we are and is this the sort of behaviour that will make Britain great again. Come over all gammon as I'm sure they will care more about that than some lefty cyclist.
How about we all email our Tory MPs and say how disgusted we are and is this the sort of behaviour that will make Britain great again. Come over all gammon as I’m sure they will care more about that than some lefty cyclist.
No one else sees it. They'll ignore it.
Weather the storm, push out some lies, wait a week, job jobbed.
They will fight it, emasculate it and push the ‘Got Vaccines Done’ three word slogan aggressively.
I can already write the inquiry report:
- "unexpected" and unprepared --> recommend to create a new emergency planning and reliance agency; will hire a load of people getting paid £100k a year to discuss possible plans, for possible scenarios, and headed by some senior risk managers from the banking sector or perhaps retiring army big wigs.
- blame will be passed to: previous governments, ministers, advisors, civil servants and the media - the current cabinets, CMO, CSA, Sage etc will all be held to have tried their best in difficult circumstances
- government ministers will be commended for trying to be creative and find solutions, by opening new procurement channels and removing regulatory barriers. Probably even recommending that there should be an even easier way to do this for any future crisis!
Well written. You could save them 5 years and 1,000s of man hours.
In the past chairs of these committees and inquiries used to be bothered that, if they whitewashed it for the government they would be accused of toadying and lose professional credibility.
Nowadays I imagine they are more concerned about being denounced as 'unpatriotic' by the government and end up with gangs of gammons burning effigies on their front lawn. Plus, if you know you're going to lose your professional credibility the offer of a nice job in charge of some quango or other is tempting.
Well written. You could save them 5 years and 1,000s of man hours.
The consultants wouldn't get their fee, though....
In the past chairs of these committees and inquiries used to be bothered that
Since when? They have always operated under rules which limit their effectiveness in almost every case. There are a few exceptions where those commissioning it werent involved originally so are happy to let them loose but generally its always been designed to be limited in impact.
A classic example is the Falklands war one.
Usually what has happened is that the first cover up inquiry is headed by someone whose name is indelibly associated with the whitewash. Widgery springs to mind. Often near the end of their career. Then, if there is enough outrage*, a second inquiry is announced and whoever chairs it stresses that they won't touch it if it is proscribed in the way that discredited the previous one. This second inquiry gets further towards the truth, but even if it does, it is usually decades down the line. See also the Warren Commission vs the House Committee on Assassinations or whatever it was called.
*There would never be enough outrage nowadays. Johnson will just lie, mumble something about 'getting something done', declare scrutiny to be unpatriotic, then ask you've all heard the one about the burka-wearing ventriloquist.
– government ministers will be commended for trying to be creative and find solutions, by opening new procurement channels and removing regulatory barriers. Probably even recommending that there should be an even easier way to do this for any future crisis!
Sir Matt Hancock 🙂
Is there an injunction on the (alleged) Gove story, or just no juicy pics to make it worth running?
Funny that you never get, say, the Sun reporting that a journalist at the Mail is carrying on with the intern or something similar? No journalist has ever been unfaithful?
Been pondering this
Gove is Murdochs man through & through, IF its true he's left his wife for a bloke I imagine the left wing tabloids bbc etc are wary of simply outing him out of vindictiveness.
But the Sun is pretty well controlled by murdoch & Gove is an ex journo
It also says to me there's no corruption angle anyones aware of, the way there was with Hancock.
Hancocks revelations followed on from his weakenig by Cummings leak
but Gove & Cummings very close (maybe not as close as rumours spread by Williamson when chief whip🙄)
I can see the RW press being keen to keep it quiet, at least until bately & spen election is over (Galloway using homophobia as a tool to help win over small c conservative voters there from Labour)
Tbf a minister leaving his wife for another man or woman shouldn't really be news, even tho I expect the tabloids would leap straight on a Labour MP
Rumour has it that Hancock was the dead cat to distract us from this - not totally convinced by that particular conspiracy theory
https://goodlawproject.org/update/yesterdays-court-hearing/
Which Gove story is true then?
Break up announced.
