Stop voting for fucking Tories

[tabascoboy]

The more it goes on the more it looks like a simple powerplay and grudge mission. DC has contradicted himself a few times now although to be fair it's been going for 6 hours and the Barnard Castle incident isn't good for his credibility unless he has proof of this " security threat".

It's not good for BoJo if any of the allegations stick but Tory HQ will make sure it's put on the back burner until the official inquiry and "national interest" will win the day. Expect a couple of names to move around in a future cabinet shuffle when it's died down a bit, and most likely a new Tory party leader before the next election with BoJo stepping down due to "health" or some shit rather than getting pushed.

The shopping trolley is the blonde slug himself

He says the Chancellor was "at his wit's end about the shopping trolley," referring to his earlier comments describing the prime minister as a "shopping trolley" who went from one side to the other.

Aha, I see now!

[tabascoboy]

No idea what "poll" this is but the author is a Sunday Times journalist so has credibility. DC seems to be having the opposite effect to what he might have hoped

[TheNatalShark]

Going out on a limb here but it's either a joke or a terrible whoosh.

Either way you should feel bad

[Paddington Bear]

[Lobby]

"Control the shopping trolley" sounds like a genuine Johnson-ism




Meanwhile I can't see anything said about Gove yet

Nothing about Gove. Plenty of boosting of Sunak and Raab. It's a fairly clear gameplan. Fucking unbelievable we're essentially being locked into being governed by these arseholes.

And all the people who can do no wrong in his evidence (despite demonstrably doing quite a bit of harm) just happen to have been hard line brexiteers, while those he is attempting to throw under the bus (in particular Hancock), just happen to have been remainers; funny that.

[tabascoboy]

Going out on a limb here but it's either a joke or a terrible whoosh.

Either way you should feel bad

You sure about that?

[TheNatalShark]

I'm pretty confident in between the time the session ended (in fact tweet I think is done before it did) that it is unlikely a poll would be completed and return those results amongst a general audience a journalist would be happy distributing with her name on it.

Given said general audience are not twitter and would not have been following anything said in any detail until the eve or tomorrow

[Margin__Walker]

Pretty clearly a joke tbf

[tabascoboy]

Pretty clearly a joke tbf

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it's an ironically accurate reflection though! Brexit + vaccines - Cummings is a dick = no shits given

[TheNatalShark]

It even says dated the 27th for Christ sakes

[tabascoboy]

It even says dated the 27th for Christ sakes

OK you got me. Happy?

[TheNatalShark]

It even says dated the 27th for Christ sakes

OK you got me. Happy?

I'm never happy

[tabascoboy]

It even says dated the 27th for Christ sakes

OK you got me. Happy?

I'm never happy

Me neither! I think I'm just in despair thinking that nothing will effectively change because of this, no matter how much is true.

Hancock's "spokesperson"

[Margin__Walker]

Pretty clearly a joke tbf

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it's an ironically accurate reflection though! Brexit + vaccines - Cummings is a dick = no shits given

I really don't see the dial shifting further in the Johnson government's favour as a result of this. That said it's more than possible that it doesn't move the dial much at all the other way and they are starting with a huge buffer

Cummings clearly has huge credibility issues. Albeit put me in the camp of those who'd believe his version over Johnson's in most cases

[Biffer]

Can we not just tax the wealthy untill they just fuck off?

I mean the festival of shit they create man....

The social contract that they ripped up over the last 10 years, that alone must leave them vulnerable as fuck to us just not caring a minute of piss about them.

England keeps voting for them.

[tabascoboy]

I really don't see the dial shifting further in the Johnson government's favour as a result of this. That said it's more than possible that it doesn't move the dial much at all the other way and they are starting with a huge buffer

Cummings clearly has huge credibility issues. Albeit put me in the camp of those who'd believe his version over Johnson's in most cases

His comments were extremely specific, but coming from private conversations or meetings which no doubt weren't minuted it's very much "he said, she said". It will be interesting but probably not revealing what Hancock says tomorrow and what approach he takes: specific rebuttals / denials or Johnson style refusing to deny details. Johnson himself is too teflon coated now and will just do what he always does, keeping the discussion where he wants it to focus.

Another problem is Cummings attacks are too clearly partisan.

[SaintK]

Pretty clearly a joke tbf

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it's an ironically accurate reflection though! Brexit + vaccines - Cummings is a dick = no shits given

I really don't see the dial shifting further in the Johnson government's favour as a result of this. That said it's more than possible that it doesn't move the dial much at all the other way and they are starting with a huge buffer

Cummings clearly has huge credibility issues. Albeit put me in the camp of those who'd believe his version over Johnson's in most cases

Hancock may not survive for too much longer but Johnson won't sack him just yet as will be a sign of weakness.
Johnson will brazen all this out and not bring any inquiry forward especially with the current vaccine "bounce"
As Cummings tweeted last week

the point of the inquiry is the opposite of learning, it is to delay scrutiny, preserve the broken system & distract public from real Qs.

[fishfoodie]

I really don't see the dial shifting further in the Johnson government's favour as a result of this. That said it's more than possible that it doesn't move the dial much at all the other way and they are starting with a huge buffer

Cummings clearly has huge credibility issues. Albeit put me in the camp of those who'd believe his version over Johnson's in most cases

His comments were extremely specific, but coming from private conversations or meetings which no doubt weren't minuted it's very much "he said, she said". It will be interesting but probably not revealing what Hancock says tomorrow and what approach he takes: specific rebuttals / denials or Johnson style refusing to deny details. Johnson himself is too teflon coated now and will just do what he always does, keeping the discussion where he wants it to focus.

Another problem is Cummings attacks are too clearly partisan.

One short summary here:



and one of the most damaging allegations he makes towards Hancock was; he was asked about examples of Hancock lying; & he says that before he & the bumblecunt both got Covid; Hancock told the meeting that the PPE situation was under control, & they had plenty; & then; two weeks or so later when they got back; Hancock admitted it was a total shitshow; & blamed the treasury, & everyone else.

Now if things were fucked; & all the signs then & now were that they were; Hancock not looking for immediate assistance to sort the a crisis situation out; makes him culpable for a lot of Doctors, & Nurse & frontline staff dying ... you know, the people who work for him

[tabascoboy]

Ex MP Rory Stewart getting some praise today for being ahead of the Government's game last year in recommending school closures. Can there be any doubt he'd have been a better PM than what we ended up with?



Then again his record of voting doesn't make great reading.

[Openside]

Can we not just tax the wealthy untill they just fuck off?

I mean the festival of shit they create man....

The social contract that they ripped up over the last 10 years, that alone must leave them vulnerable as fuck to us just not caring a minute of piss about them.

You are certifiable

[tc27]

Ex MP Rory Stewart getting some praise today for being ahead of the Government's game last year in recommending school closures. Can there be any doubt he'd have been a better PM than what we ended up with?



Then again his record of voting doesn't make great reading.

Rory Stewart probably the only public political figure to get this call right and probably would have saved tens of thousands of lives had he being in charge.

[Hal Jordan]

[
As Cummings tweeted last week

the point of the inquiry is the opposite of learning, it is to delay scrutiny, preserve the broken system & distract public from real Qs.

There's the motive - Cummings wants to burn the system down and doesn't give a toss about the casualties, or have the commentators forgotten everything he said or did prior to the pandemic?

[tabascoboy]

Turned into mostly mutual backslapping with help from fellow Tories not surprisingly. Evasion when the harder questions were asked about COVID with no direct answers and predictably reiterated "vaccines, vaccines, vaccines". Not that you''d expect much different from anyone else or party in the same position.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

[
As Cummings tweeted last week

the point of the inquiry is the opposite of learning, it is to delay scrutiny, preserve the broken system & distract public from real Qs.

There's the motive - Cummings wants to burn the system down and doesn't give a toss about the casualties, or have the commentators forgotten everything he said or did prior to the pandemic?

It was perhaps telling yesterday how much time was given over to Cummings illegally wandering around the country during lockdown. Okay he's come up with an answer he thinks works now, but any which way it didn't seem an appropriate line of questioning yesterday given what the supposed purpose of the questions was

[JM2K6]

[
As Cummings tweeted last week

There's the motive - Cummings wants to burn the system down and doesn't give a toss about the casualties, or have the commentators forgotten everything he said or did prior to the pandemic?

It was perhaps telling yesterday how much time was given over to Cummings illegally wandering around the country during lockdown. Okay he's come up with an answer he thinks works now, but any which way it didn't seem an appropriate line of questioning yesterday given what the supposed purpose of the questions was

Why? It was a committee looking at the government's decision making regarding coronavirus & what lessons could be learned, which is a broad enough remit. The Barnard Castle trip covers lots of things:

- The government's willingness to defend the indefensible
- Cummings' own credibility
- The impact of that incident on public trust & the government's own decision making process

It was a landmark event.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

There's the motive - Cummings wants to burn the system down and doesn't give a toss about the casualties, or have the commentators forgotten everything he said or did prior to the pandemic?

It was perhaps telling yesterday how much time was given over to Cummings illegally wandering around the country during lockdown. Okay he's come up with an answer he thinks works now, but any which way it didn't seem an appropriate line of questioning yesterday given what the supposed purpose of the questions was

Why? It was a committee looking at the government's decision making regarding coronavirus & what lessons could be learned, which is a broad enough remit. The Barnard Castle trip covers lots of things:

- The government's willingness to defend the indefensible
- Cummings' own credibility
- The impact of that incident on public trust & the government's own decision making process

It was a landmark event.

The questions about the trip(s) out of London, for whatever reason, and the tip to Barnard Castle, and how it speaks to credibility of Cummings do touch enough to the questions around the public messaging during the crisis that it opened the door, but it's barely tangential to questions of procurement, scientific evidence (both in itself and in the wider consideration of other factors, notably the economy), test and trace, timing of lockdowns.... I suppose the inquiry doesn't exist in a vacuum and politics remains politics, but the length of time given over to behaviour of the witness wasn't exactly germane

I'm not saying Cummings shouldn't face such questions, and by all means excoriate him for his failings, just the hearing yesterday rather ambled away from its stated purpose. Not the only hearing to do that of course

[JM2K6]

It was perhaps telling yesterday how much time was given over to Cummings illegally wandering around the country during lockdown. Okay he's come up with an answer he thinks works now, but any which way it didn't seem an appropriate line of questioning yesterday given what the supposed purpose of the questions was

Why? It was a committee looking at the government's decision making regarding coronavirus & what lessons could be learned, which is a broad enough remit. The Barnard Castle trip covers lots of things:

- The government's willingness to defend the indefensible
- Cummings' own credibility
- The impact of that incident on public trust & the government's own decision making process

It was a landmark event.

The questions about the trip(s) out of London, for whatever reason, and the tip to Barnard Castle, and how it speaks to credibility of Cummings do touch enough to the questions around the public messaging during the crisis that it opened the door, but it's barely tangential to questions of procurement, scientific evidence (both in itself and in the wider consideration of other factors, notably the economy), test and trace, timing of lockdowns.... I suppose the inquiry doesn't exist in a vacuum and politics remains politics, but the length of time given over to behaviour of the witness wasn't exactly germane

I'm not saying Cummings shouldn't face such questions, and by all means excoriate him for his failings, just the hearing yesterday rather ambled away from its stated purpose. Not the only hearing to do that of course

You don't see how the actions of the Prime Minster's SPAD & the uproar around how it was handled vs how everyone else was treated is relevant to a committee looking at the government's decision making & lessons that can be learned? Or, to put it more bluntly, how something that directly questions Cummings' credibility is important when Cummings is giving explosive evidence against the government?

Of course it was going to be wide-ranging. But they'd have been not doing their jobs properly if they hadn't asked about it.

[Lobby]

No idea what "poll" this is but the author is a Sunday Times journalist so has credibility. DC seems to be having the opposite effect to what he might have hoped

This poll may have been intended as a joke, but it appears now to have been strangely prescient. Survation have published a poll taken on the day of Dom’s evidence.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Why? It was a committee looking at the government's decision making regarding coronavirus & what lessons could be learned, which is a broad enough remit. The Barnard Castle trip covers lots of things:

- The government's willingness to defend the indefensible
- Cummings' own credibility
- The impact of that incident on public trust & the government's own decision making process

It was a landmark event.

The questions about the trip(s) out of London, for whatever reason, and the tip to Barnard Castle, and how it speaks to credibility of Cummings do touch enough to the questions around the public messaging during the crisis that it opened the door, but it's barely tangential to questions of procurement, scientific evidence (both in itself and in the wider consideration of other factors, notably the economy), test and trace, timing of lockdowns.... I suppose the inquiry doesn't exist in a vacuum and politics remains politics, but the length of time given over to behaviour of the witness wasn't exactly germane

I'm not saying Cummings shouldn't face such questions, and by all means excoriate him for his failings, just the hearing yesterday rather ambled away from its stated purpose. Not the only hearing to do that of course

You don't see how the actions of the Prime Minster's SPAD & the uproar around how it was handled vs how everyone else was treated is relevant to a committee looking at the government's decision making & lessons that can be learned? Or, to put it more bluntly, how something that directly questions Cummings' credibility is important when Cummings is giving explosive evidence against the government?

Of course it was going to be wide-ranging. But they'd have been not doing their jobs properly if they hadn't asked about it.

To repeat, it's relevant to the credibility of Cummins, and it's relevant to some of the communication HMG undertook. But, and I don't know if you listened to the whole, it was wildly over represented in the question given the limited relevance to the hearing and was surely more about political point scoring. Granted Cummings actions hugely angered many, myself included, but still given the purpose of the hearing it did wander more than a little off course.

[fishfoodie]

Why? It was a committee looking at the government's decision making regarding coronavirus & what lessons could be learned, which is a broad enough remit. The Barnard Castle trip covers lots of things:

- The government's willingness to defend the indefensible
- Cummings' own credibility
- The impact of that incident on public trust & the government's own decision making process

It was a landmark event.

The questions about the trip(s) out of London, for whatever reason, and the tip to Barnard Castle, and how it speaks to credibility of Cummings do touch enough to the questions around the public messaging during the crisis that it opened the door, but it's barely tangential to questions of procurement, scientific evidence (both in itself and in the wider consideration of other factors, notably the economy), test and trace, timing of lockdowns.... I suppose the inquiry doesn't exist in a vacuum and politics remains politics, but the length of time given over to behaviour of the witness wasn't exactly germane

I'm not saying Cummings shouldn't face such questions, and by all means excoriate him for his failings, just the hearing yesterday rather ambled away from its stated purpose. Not the only hearing to do that of course

You don't see how the actions of the Prime Minster's SPAD & the uproar around how it was handled vs how everyone else was treated is relevant to a committee looking at the government's decision making & lessons that can be learned? Or, to put it more bluntly, how something that directly questions Cummings' credibility is important when Cummings is giving explosive evidence against the government?

Of course it was going to be wide-ranging. But they'd have been not doing their jobs properly if they hadn't asked about it.

Well then shouldn't the MPs be asking how it is possible that someone who was so unsuitable to be in such a senior position, got there ?

Again; the bumblecunt, Gove, & Hancock, etc can't just say DC is a loon; when they were all supporting him thru-out his tenure, & especially thru his Barnard Castle trip !

They all had an opportunity to come to the same conclusion as the rest of the world about him, long before this week.

[JM2K6]

The questions about the trip(s) out of London, for whatever reason, and the tip to Barnard Castle, and how it speaks to credibility of Cummings do touch enough to the questions around the public messaging during the crisis that it opened the door, but it's barely tangential to questions of procurement, scientific evidence (both in itself and in the wider consideration of other factors, notably the economy), test and trace, timing of lockdowns.... I suppose the inquiry doesn't exist in a vacuum and politics remains politics, but the length of time given over to behaviour of the witness wasn't exactly germane

I'm not saying Cummings shouldn't face such questions, and by all means excoriate him for his failings, just the hearing yesterday rather ambled away from its stated purpose. Not the only hearing to do that of course

You don't see how the actions of the Prime Minster's SPAD & the uproar around how it was handled vs how everyone else was treated is relevant to a committee looking at the government's decision making & lessons that can be learned? Or, to put it more bluntly, how something that directly questions Cummings' credibility is important when Cummings is giving explosive evidence against the government?

Of course it was going to be wide-ranging. But they'd have been not doing their jobs properly if they hadn't asked about it.

To repeat, it's relevant to the credibility of Cummins, and it's relevant to some of the communication HMG undertook. But, and I don't know if you listened to the whole, it was wildly over represented in the question given the limited relevance to the hearing and was surely more about political point scoring. Granted Cummings actions hugely angered many, myself included, but still given the purpose of the hearing it did wander more than a little off course.

He gave evidence for what, 6 hours? Not much of that was about Barnard Castle. It's not about whether it angered people, it was a legit topic of questioning that was directly relevant in multiple ways to the committee.

[JM2K6]

The questions about the trip(s) out of London, for whatever reason, and the tip to Barnard Castle, and how it speaks to credibility of Cummings do touch enough to the questions around the public messaging during the crisis that it opened the door, but it's barely tangential to questions of procurement, scientific evidence (both in itself and in the wider consideration of other factors, notably the economy), test and trace, timing of lockdowns.... I suppose the inquiry doesn't exist in a vacuum and politics remains politics, but the length of time given over to behaviour of the witness wasn't exactly germane

I'm not saying Cummings shouldn't face such questions, and by all means excoriate him for his failings, just the hearing yesterday rather ambled away from its stated purpose. Not the only hearing to do that of course

You don't see how the actions of the Prime Minster's SPAD & the uproar around how it was handled vs how everyone else was treated is relevant to a committee looking at the government's decision making & lessons that can be learned? Or, to put it more bluntly, how something that directly questions Cummings' credibility is important when Cummings is giving explosive evidence against the government?

Of course it was going to be wide-ranging. But they'd have been not doing their jobs properly if they hadn't asked about it.

Well then shouldn't the MPs be asking how it is possible that someone who was so unsuitable to be in such a senior position, got there ?

Again; the bumblecunt, Gove, & Hancock, etc can't just say DC is a loon; when they were all supporting him thru-out his tenure, & especially thru his Barnard Castle trip !

They all had an opportunity to come to the same conclusion as the rest of the world about him, long before this week.

He beat them to it. He did say it was mad he had that much power.

[Margin__Walker]

No idea what "poll" this is but the author is a Sunday Times journalist so has credibility. DC seems to be having the opposite effect to what he might have hoped

This poll may have been intended as a joke, but it appears now to have been strangely prescient. Survation have published a poll taken on the day of Dom’s evidence.

The only thing that poll tells you is that the needle has moved fairly heavily to the Conservatives in the last month or so. Yougov had the Tories on 46 percent a couple of weeks ago for example.

Most of the field work for this one would have been pre evidence and certainly before that bled through to many people being aware of it (evening news yesterday, today's papers etc.)

I'm guessing this whole thing won't move the dial too much whilst things are opening up and everyone is demob happy. I definitely don't see a significant rise in Conservative voting intention though in the immediate aftermath.

Edit - from the link

The fieldwork for today’s poll was on 25 – 26th May but mainly completed prior to the Cummings select committee evidence.

[I like neeps]

I don't think the Cummings performance will be too damaging to the government. He's not a popular person and most people don't trust him. Everyone knows the handling of the pandemic was not good. But now we've done a superb job of vaccinating and things are opening up. People are now focusing on the good as we've been upset for a year now and it's not healthy to focus on that.

Was funny the BBC muted him when he said the only person he leaked to was Laura K. Again we all knew she was his puppet but still.

[JM2K6]

Also not healthy: Fucking dying, like 150,000+ people

[Paddington Bear]

No idea what "poll" this is but the author is a Sunday Times journalist so has credibility. DC seems to be having the opposite effect to what he might have hoped

This poll may have been intended as a joke, but it appears now to have been strangely prescient. Survation have published a poll taken on the day of Dom’s evidence.

The only thing that poll tells you is that the needle has moved fairly heavily to the Conservatives in the last month or so. Yougov had the Tories on 46 percent a couple of weeks ago for example.

Most of the field work for this one would have been pre evidence and certainly before that bled through to many people being aware of it (evening news yesterday, today's papers etc.)

I'm guessing this whole thing won't move the dial too much whilst things are opening up and everyone is demob happy. I definitely don't see a significant rise in Conservative voting intention though in the immediate aftermath.

Edit - from the link

The fieldwork for today’s poll was on 25 – 26th May but mainly completed prior to the Cummings select committee evidence.

Yeah things like this won't cut through given the success of the vaccines and the fact we've opened up a bit. Seems fairly straightforward.

[Hal Jordan]

Also not healthy: Fucking dying, like 150,000+ people

No one cares, vaccines, Brexit, funny bunga bunga man and the pubs are open.

[Biffer]

Someone fetch my big brush, I have a fence over here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57280418

[tabascoboy]

Someone fetch my big brush, I have a fence over here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57280418

He found that a Tory donor had settled an invoice for some of the costs.

But Mr Johnson had been unaware of this, Lord Geidt added.

Our PM, Denial is his (other, as well as Teflon) middle name.

acted unwisely

Sums up his whole political career so far

[SaintK]

Someone fetch my big brush, I have a fence over here.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57280418

He found that a Tory donor had settled an invoice for some of the costs.

But Mr Johnson had been unaware of this, Lord Geidt added.

Our PM, Denial is his (other, as well as Teflon) middle name.

acted unwisely

Sums up his whole political career so far

No, all of the costs, all £200k of it and evidently the blonde slug didn't know it had been paid for untill late February.............yeah righty ho!!!
And in other news Shifty Hanncock ahs been cleared by the PM of any misdeaamnour even though Geidt had come to the concludion that Hancock had broken the ministerial code!!!

The prime minister told health secretary Matt Hanccok he won’t face any further action, after Lord Geidt found he had breached the ministerial code when he didn’t declare a family firm, which he had a 20% stake in, won an NHS contract.

Evidently Hancock didn't know anything about it even though his sister and mother are the sole directors!!