Stop voting for fucking Tories

[JM2K6]

That’s just wilfully stupid. Anyone who thinks Blair’s administrations weren’t as dishonest as this one is a shill or a mug.

No mate, you're an absolute moron. You're so desperate to lick Tory boots you can't even tell when a Government has plumbed new depths of corruption, arrogance, and breathtaking stupidity, allied to a total disregard for the law. This is the most deliberately dishonest government in living memory.

There are plenty of conservative MPs and conservative voters who can recognise this bunch for what they are. It takes a special kind of muppet to pretend they're not the worst we've had for a very, very long time.

As it happens I think Johnson should have resigned over his loathsome accusation about Starmer and Savile, instead of ‘doing a Tom Watson’.

But have it your way.

Still, nice to think that even a moron is a better judge of the laughable GLP and its absurd claims than the peculiar ranters on here.

I give you shit over the GLP because of just how stupid it is to think they're the problem and not the government. Case in point: the latest Matt Hancock thing. You think it's all about the GLP not having standing and so the whole thing was a joke. Except, of course, that the important part of the ruling was about the appointments, not the GLP. Once again a case brought either fully or in part by the GLP has shown that the government did not do what they were supposed to do:

Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift said in a written ruling: “It is the process leading up to the two decisions which has been found by this court to be in breach of the public sector equality duty.

“For those reasons we will grant a declaration to the Runnymede Trust that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did not comply with the public sector equality duty in relation to the decisions how to appoint Baroness Harding as interim executive chair of the NIHP in August 2020 and Mr Coupe as director of testing for NHSTT in September 2020.”

For normal people, that's the bit that matters, and quite rightly. This government doesn't give a shit about laws or procedures, and only a moron would argue against that.

And I suspect the ruling regarding their standing isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

[Tichtheid]

Those who think the current government is made up of shitehawks include Tory grandees like Michael Heseltine.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -heseltine

[sockwithaticket]

John Major's been fairly damning too.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... is-johnson

But, no, all politicians are as bad as each other. Boris' lot aren't appreciably worse or more corrupt than those who came before

[Plim]

No mate, you're an absolute moron. You're so desperate to lick Tory boots you can't even tell when a Government has plumbed new depths of corruption, arrogance, and breathtaking stupidity, allied to a total disregard for the law. This is the most deliberately dishonest government in living memory.

There are plenty of conservative MPs and conservative voters who can recognise this bunch for what they are. It takes a special kind of muppet to pretend they're not the worst we've had for a very, very long time.

As it happens I think Johnson should have resigned over his loathsome accusation about Starmer and Savile, instead of ‘doing a Tom Watson’.

But have it your way.

Still, nice to think that even a moron is a better judge of the laughable GLP and its absurd claims than the peculiar ranters on here.

I give you shit over the GLP because of just how stupid it is to think they're the problem and not the government. Case in point: the latest Matt Hancock thing. You think it's all about the GLP not having standing and so the whole thing was a joke. Except, of course, that the important part of the ruling was about the appointments, not the GLP. Once again a case brought either fully or in part by the GLP has shown that the government did not do what they were supposed to do:

Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Swift said in a written ruling: “It is the process leading up to the two decisions which has been found by this court to be in breach of the public sector equality duty.

“For those reasons we will grant a declaration to the Runnymede Trust that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did not comply with the public sector equality duty in relation to the decisions how to appoint Baroness Harding as interim executive chair of the NIHP in August 2020 and Mr Coupe as director of testing for NHSTT in September 2020.”

For normal people, that's the bit that matters, and quite rightly. This government doesn't give a shit about laws or procedures, and only a moron would argue against that.

And I suspect the ruling regarding their standing isn't the slam dunk you think it is.

The GLP is quoted on here as uncovering corruption, not for showing that an administrative step wasn’t taken or was flawed. I said months ago that all govs, councils and public authorities lose JRs frequently. It’s routine to have fallen short on tests, consultations, statutory interpretation and similar stuff.

JR outcomes do not imply corruption.

‘Unlawful’ just means something doesn’t comply with the law. It doesn’t of itself mean serious or criminal. In this judgment the court even refused a declaration in terms of unlawfulness.

I never said the GLP had lost all standing for good. I pointed out that it was denied standing in that case. Nobody can be denied standing universally, that’s not how it works.

I don’t think you understand what JR actually is or how it works. But I’m a moron so what do I know.

[JM2K6]

Watch those goal posts move!

"They didn't do anything wrong. And if they did, it wasn't anything major. And if it was, it was something everyone was doing in the past. The problem is the crowd funded lawyers seeking to hold the government to account. You just don't understand judicial review, which is when a decision that goes against the government is only bad when I say it's bad, which is never"

[ASMO]

[C69]

So the FT tomorrow have a piece about the non aggression pact between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Starmer looking to push hard in the red wall seats and the Lib Dems to focus on their second place seats in the South.
Whilst not withdrawing candidates, both Parties will just be focussing on their hit lists and hopefully will see proper tactical voting to oust Boris and his Cultist reactionary loons.

[fishfoodie]

So the FT tomorrow have a piece about the non aggression pact between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Starmer looking to push hard in the red wall seats and the Lib Dems to focus on their second place seats in the South.
Whilst not withdrawing candidates, both Parties will just be focussing on their hit lists and hopefully will see proper tactical voting to oust Boris and his Cultist reactionary loons.

Outstanding !!!!!!!!!!*


* aware of the Pratchett implications of so many exclamation marks

[petej]

Watch those goal posts move!

"They didn't do anything wrong. And if they did, it wasn't anything major. And if it was, it was something everyone was doing in the past. The problem is the crowd funded lawyers seeking to hold the government to account. You just don't understand judicial review, which is when a decision that goes against the government is only bad when I say it's bad, which is never"

I think the real crime isn't that they didn't fully go through the correct procedures but that they selected people who were shit. Hence why people care about the dido hard-on twice winner of the shit CEO award but don't care so much about Kate Bingham.

[JM2K6]

Watch those goal posts move!

"They didn't do anything wrong. And if they did, it wasn't anything major. And if it was, it was something everyone was doing in the past. The problem is the crowd funded lawyers seeking to hold the government to account. You just don't understand judicial review, which is when a decision that goes against the government is only bad when I say it's bad, which is never"

I think the real crime isn't that they didn't fully go through the correct procedures but that they selected people who were shit. Hence why people care about the dido hard-on twice winner of the shit CEO award but don't care so much about Kate Bingham.

The judicial review is never going to uncover the 'real crime'. And yes, in some cases the problem simply is that utterly incompetent perennial failures get the jobs, but in other cases the stink of corruption is unmistakable.

[Paddington Bear]

So the FT tomorrow have a piece about the non aggression pact between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Starmer looking to push hard in the red wall seats and the Lib Dems to focus on their second place seats in the South.
Whilst not withdrawing candidates, both Parties will just be focussing on their hit lists and hopefully will see proper tactical voting to oust Boris and his Cultist reactionary loons.

The challenge with this is always that voters don't move in coherent blocs and it can end up being much less effective than you think. I.e. there's amazing numbers of voters who swing wildly between parties and there's plenty of people in the South very pissed off with this Tory government who are going to have second thoughts about voting Lib Dem if they have an established policy that will lead to a Labour government.

[yermum]

Ah the enclosures and the black act. My Uni dissertation many many years ago....

[Rhubarb & Custard]

So the FT tomorrow have a piece about the non aggression pact between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Starmer looking to push hard in the red wall seats and the Lib Dems to focus on their second place seats in the South.
Whilst not withdrawing candidates, both Parties will just be focussing on their hit lists and hopefully will see proper tactical voting to oust Boris and his Cultist reactionary loons.

The challenge with this is always that voters don't move in coherent blocs and it can end up being much less effective than you think. I.e. there's amazing numbers of voters who swing wildly between parties and there's plenty of people in the South very pissed off with this Tory government who are going to have second thoughts about voting Lib Dem if they have an established policy that will lead to a Labour government.

And the Lib Dems are seemingly committed to a certain position to on trans rights which will be a problem for many Southern voters, and more specifically women who've been through higher education if we're looking at blocks of voters, blocks that is of people who vote in big numbers and might otherwise be highly motivated to support a Labour/Lib Dem action of this type for whom being told they're transphobic if they take certain positions on women's rights will see any such lectures go over like a cold bucket of sick.

Sir Humphrey would likely decide the Lib Dem intent to support the policies they do as brave. It's a problem, and it'll be such an easy one to start a culture war around that really gets at exactly the voters you'd want to be able to really get after the Tory majority

[ASMO]

So the FT tomorrow have a piece about the non aggression pact between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Starmer looking to push hard in the red wall seats and the Lib Dems to focus on their second place seats in the South.
Whilst not withdrawing candidates, both Parties will just be focussing on their hit lists and hopefully will see proper tactical voting to oust Boris and his Cultist reactionary loons.

The challenge with this is always that voters don't move in coherent blocs and it can end up being much less effective than you think. I.e. there's amazing numbers of voters who swing wildly between parties and there's plenty of people in the South very pissed off with this Tory government who are going to have second thoughts about voting Lib Dem if they have an established policy that will lead to a Labour government.

And the Lib Dems are seemingly committed to a certain position to on trans rights which will be a problem for many Southern voters, and more specifically women who've been through higher education if we're looking at blocks of voters, blocks that is of people who vote in big numbers and might otherwise be highly motivated to support a Labour/Lib Dem action of this type for whom being told they're transphobic if they take certain positions on women's rights will see any such lectures go over like a cold bucket of sick.

Sir Humphrey would likely decide the Lib Dem intent to support the policies they do as brave. It's a problem, and it'll be such an easy one to start a culture war around that really gets at exactly the voters you'd want to be able to really get after the Tory majority

It may be as simple a choice as to which do you hate the most, Boris or trans rights

[fishfoodie]

The challenge with this is always that voters don't move in coherent blocs and it can end up being much less effective than you think. I.e. there's amazing numbers of voters who swing wildly between parties and there's plenty of people in the South very pissed off with this Tory government who are going to have second thoughts about voting Lib Dem if they have an established policy that will lead to a Labour government.

And the Lib Dems are seemingly committed to a certain position to on trans rights which will be a problem for many Southern voters, and more specifically women who've been through higher education if we're looking at blocks of voters, blocks that is of people who vote in big numbers and might otherwise be highly motivated to support a Labour/Lib Dem action of this type for whom being told they're transphobic if they take certain positions on women's rights will see any such lectures go over like a cold bucket of sick.

Sir Humphrey would likely decide the Lib Dem intent to support the policies they do as brave. It's a problem, and it'll be such an easy one to start a culture war around that really gets at exactly the voters you'd want to be able to really get after the Tory majority

It may be as simple a choice as to which do you hate the most, Boris or trans rights

"The Economy, Stupid !"

I don't think 99% of the population will give a fig about trans rights, once the GE campaign starts.

[C69]

So the FT tomorrow have a piece about the non aggression pact between Labour and the Lib Dems.
Starmer looking to push hard in the red wall seats and the Lib Dems to focus on their second place seats in the South.
Whilst not withdrawing candidates, both Parties will just be focussing on their hit lists and hopefully will see proper tactical voting to oust Boris and his Cultist reactionary loons.

The challenge with this is always that voters don't move in coherent blocs and it can end up being much less effective than you think. I.e. there's amazing numbers of voters who swing wildly between parties and there's plenty of people in the South very pissed off with this Tory government who are going to have second thoughts about voting Lib Dem if they have an established policy that will lead to a Labour government.

Will you still vote for this corrupt lot?

Tbh Starmer is a bit Blair light and appeals to similar people that Blair did.
I don't particularly like him but compared to Boris even the staunchest Tories I know would vote for him over this lying corrupt lot.
Major, Hestletine etc etc agree

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The challenge with this is always that voters don't move in coherent blocs and it can end up being much less effective than you think. I.e. there's amazing numbers of voters who swing wildly between parties and there's plenty of people in the South very pissed off with this Tory government who are going to have second thoughts about voting Lib Dem if they have an established policy that will lead to a Labour government.

And the Lib Dems are seemingly committed to a certain position to on trans rights which will be a problem for many Southern voters, and more specifically women who've been through higher education if we're looking at blocks of voters, blocks that is of people who vote in big numbers and might otherwise be highly motivated to support a Labour/Lib Dem action of this type for whom being told they're transphobic if they take certain positions on women's rights will see any such lectures go over like a cold bucket of sick.

Sir Humphrey would likely decide the Lib Dem intent to support the policies they do as brave. It's a problem, and it'll be such an easy one to start a culture war around that really gets at exactly the voters you'd want to be able to really get after the Tory majority

It may be as simple a choice as to which do you hate the most, Boris or trans rights

I suspect they may consider that as Boris or shitting on women's rights, but I'm aware I'm straying dangerously close if not already over the line of mansplaining in saying so.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

And the Lib Dems are seemingly committed to a certain position to on trans rights which will be a problem for many Southern voters, and more specifically women who've been through higher education if we're looking at blocks of voters, blocks that is of people who vote in big numbers and might otherwise be highly motivated to support a Labour/Lib Dem action of this type for whom being told they're transphobic if they take certain positions on women's rights will see any such lectures go over like a cold bucket of sick.

Sir Humphrey would likely decide the Lib Dem intent to support the policies they do as brave. It's a problem, and it'll be such an easy one to start a culture war around that really gets at exactly the voters you'd want to be able to really get after the Tory majority

It may be as simple a choice as to which do you hate the most, Boris or trans rights

"The Economy, Stupid !"

I don't think 99% of the population will give a fig about trans rights, once the GE campaign starts.

Trans rights no, but rephrase the debate as women's rights and it's a different thing. And to repeat and stress the point it's a very, very different thing with pretty much exactly the voters you need to bring over, and voters who but for this issue you've never been better placed to bring inside your tent

[C69]

So people will vote based on trans rights?
Wait until the NI increases, the massive energy bills and the interest rates rises hit home.
As well as relatively high inflation.

I suspect the Arthur or Martha argument will be seen as a tad silly.

With that and Boris and much of his Cultists being seen as out of touch and corrupt.

[JM2K6]

The broader population is heavily in favour of trans rights going by pretty much every poll conducted on this. High profile shitheads and almost entirely negative media, allied to a small number of vociferous Twitter users and a large number of Twitter bots make it seem a much more controversial stance than it is in reality.

[Paddington Bear]

"The Economy, Stupid !"

I don't think 99% of the population will give a fig about trans rights, once the GE campaign starts.

Yes, which is why I would put good money on the Tories winning again.

Will you still vote for this corrupt lot?

Tbh Starmer is a bit Blair light and appeals to similar people that Blair did.
I don't particularly like him but compared to Boris even the staunchest Tories I know would vote for him over this lying corrupt lot.
Major, Hestletine etc etc agree

No. Stand by it compared to Corbyn but now Labour have a half reasonable leader there is a clear better alternative, even if I don't love it.

The broader population is heavily in favour of trans rights going by pretty much every poll conducted on this. High profile shitheads and almost entirely negative media, allied to a small number of vociferous Twitter users and a large number of Twitter bots make it seem a much more controversial stance than it is in reality.

This depends on exactly how trans rights are being discussed at the time. Adults having the right to identify as they wish and be treated with respect - totally uncontroversial across swathes of voters. Some of the wackier stuff around kids that comes out of America? Different ballgame and if there's a hint of it coming from the British left expect the Tories to put it front and centre.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

People are broadly in favour of trans right, but, many people are also not in favour of as they see it (rightly or wrongly) negatively impacting women's rights. This is a loaded and emotive issue, and women's rights can be dragged into this in a number of ways, both by those who have actual concerns, reasonable or otherwise, and by those acting in bad faith who want to campaign on fear and culture wars.

Granted there are going to be those who will say they can see the truth and there's no issue here, those who sit on such a high moral horse there is no issue too problematic for them to look down on and solve in a ten word answer that proclaims the 'right' position to all, and anyone who disagrees is a racist/homophobe/transphobe/moron/less of a human.... back in the realms of reality this has been a problem waiting to happen for a while now as to how it plays out in an election given the pools of voters potentially available to the various parties.

It is what it is now, no chance you can even have a sensible discussion now in many forums, certainly not in Lib Dem ones ahead of the problems coming. I'd just like them to have some better understanding there is a problem and some better messaging ready on how to address it

[JM2K6]

This depends on exactly how trans rights are being discussed at the time. Adults having the right to identify as they wish and be treated with respect - totally uncontroversial across swathes of voters. Some of the wackier stuff around kids that comes out of America? Different ballgame and if there's a hint of it coming from the British left expect the Tories to put it front and centre.

What exactly are you referring to here? Trans kids in the USA are the same as trans kids here, except trans kids here get worse press and less representation. The religious right whipping up a storm over confected nonsense is indeed something we should be wary of importing.

[JM2K6]

No, seriously, the reframing of this as being about "women's rights" is exactly what I'm talking about. Those in favour of trans rights are also heavily in favour of self-ID and the right for trans people to live as their authentic selves, which is what the "women's rights" misdirection directly clashes with. There is no large group of people who are supportive of self ID and yet worried about women's rights when it comes to trans people.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

It might be reframing in disingenuous fashion as a debate around women's rights to some, and especially to the sort of person who sits on a high moral horse, but it's not to many people who care about the issue, and to repeat many of those are exactly the sort of voter the Libs and Labour are very likely to need to overturn an 80 seat majority.

In this more than one thing can be true, there are some real issues that are hard to sensibly debate because of cancel culture and accusations someone is transphobic, there are some real practical issues in how voters will choose to care about and cast their vote, and yes there are some BS arguments.

By all means mock and belittle those who don't agree with you, it's a fun thing to do. But any which way the centre left parties need a better messaging stance that gets their point across to many voters, it's crucial in something which is so emotive and people will have stopped listening to you inside 5 seconds if they don't like what they're hearing. It's simply not going to cut it to have a rambling 5 minute response.

I've had a few goes at it this week in focus groups, and this week I've tried a number of middle of the road approaches. And there are basically two responses, you're scum and I'm disgusted you don't care about women's rights, and you're scum and I'm disgusted you don't even care the Salvation Army is turfing young trans people out onto the streets (and that line about the Salvation Army is actually one of the responses this week). And those are the responses to middle of the road messaging attempts. This is not not an issue, even if nobody is willing to act in bad faith, and looking at recent elections plenty of people will act in bad faith

[JM2K6]

It might be reframing in disingenuous fashion as a debate around women's rights to some, and especially to the sort of person who sits on a high moral horse

...

By all means mock and belittle those who don't agree with you, it's a fun thing to do

Fuck off, mate. I'm not sitting on a high moral horse and I'm not mocking or belittling people. I'm saying that this framing of it being "many people" is inaccurate and it's constantly shown otherwise whenever there's a genuine attempt to discover people's opinions on this rather than relying on Twitter noise and pretty strongly anti-trans media. I'm talking about data, not passing down moral judgment.

Of course, there is the genuine risk that the deliberate attempts to drive "women's rights" as a trans wedge issue will succeed, and those numbers may change as a result. I understand that that's part of what you're getting at. Ultimately we've been through all of this before with gay rights, where groups attempted to reframe the issue as one not directly attacking gay people and instead being more concerned about [education, child safety, pornography, whatever]. It's an old tactic and it can succeed in some cases. Totally agree on the fact that bad faith messaging and campaigning can change things.

However, unless you can prove that the "trans right ~ women's rights" issue is actually an issue for a substantial number of people - rather than Mumsnet and JK Rowling et al - then even framing it in such a way is essentially doing the bad faith bunch's work for them.

IMO if the parties are going to have protecting trans rights on their agenda, then they need to be stronger about it. Not in terms of calling people transphobes, but in calling out bullshit data, the near-total lack of trans representation in the media, and the numbers that continue to be the best defence against the argument that it's anti women's rights. And they must do so while also being stronger about women's rights themselves because it's not like this country has covered itself in glory there. The two things can co-exist quite easily.

[robmatic]

This depends on exactly how trans rights are being discussed at the time. Adults having the right to identify as they wish and be treated with respect - totally uncontroversial across swathes of voters. Some of the wackier stuff around kids that comes out of America? Different ballgame and if there's a hint of it coming from the British left expect the Tories to put it front and centre.

Yeah, I'm far from being socially conservative and have absolutely no desire to see anyone be a victim of prejudice. However:

"Trans women are women" - nope
"Assigned male/female at birth" - nope, I'm a parent, that's not how it works
lesbians with penises - that's not how that works either
Blokes in women's sport - nope
Lady brains/male brains... sorry, authentic selves - seems incredibly sexist

[Line6 HXFX]

You have to seriously wonder how much cash "hatred" is costing is.

Can we even afford to be hateful?
Will it just fuck us?


Hatred of foriegners in terms of brexit. Hundreds of Billions, down the drain...whole industries shafted...the e UK splitting up etc..

Hatred of the poor,sick and unemployed...Punishing poor people, in terms of growth and just the human and societal cost of their persecution., in terms of mental and physical health etc.

It isn't f'cking cheap.
And what is the end goal?
The upside?
A bunch of billionaires and millionaires, pouring poison in our ears, whilst going untaxed as we squabble amongst ourselves and tear ourselves apart?
The abundance of public school walnkers, thinking they are superior because they made everyone elses lives so f'king grim, just to justify the term fees at eton?

[JM2K6]

This depends on exactly how trans rights are being discussed at the time. Adults having the right to identify as they wish and be treated with respect - totally uncontroversial across swathes of voters. Some of the wackier stuff around kids that comes out of America? Different ballgame and if there's a hint of it coming from the British left expect the Tories to put it front and centre.

Yeah, I'm far from being socially conservative and have absolutely no desire to see anyone be a victim of prejudice. However:

"Trans women are women" - nope
"Assigned male/female at birth" - nope, I'm a parent, that's not how it works
lesbians with penises - that's not how that works either
Blokes in women's sport - nope
Lady brains/male brains... sorry, authentic selves - seems incredibly sexist

"Trans women are blokes" is pretty hardcore anti-trans tbh, if you're not keen on seeing anyone being a victim of prejudice maybe you should educate yourself a bit about trans people. Denying they exist is a bad start.

[robmatic]

This depends on exactly how trans rights are being discussed at the time. Adults having the right to identify as they wish and be treated with respect - totally uncontroversial across swathes of voters. Some of the wackier stuff around kids that comes out of America? Different ballgame and if there's a hint of it coming from the British left expect the Tories to put it front and centre.

Yeah, I'm far from being socially conservative and have absolutely no desire to see anyone be a victim of prejudice. However:

"Trans women are women" - nope
"Assigned male/female at birth" - nope, I'm a parent, that's not how it works
lesbians with penises - that's not how that works either
Blokes in women's sport - nope
Lady brains/male brains... sorry, authentic selves - seems incredibly sexist

"Trans women are blokes" is pretty hardcore anti-trans tbh, if you're not keen on seeing anyone being a victim of prejudice maybe you should educate yourself a bit about trans people. Denying they exist is a bad start.

I'm not denying that trans people exist, that's silly. I just don't think people can change sex category (even though I think we can go wild about gender).

[Ovals]

You have to seriously wonder how much cash "hatred" is costing is.

Can we even afford to be hateful?
Will it just fuck us?


Hatred of foriegners in terms of brexit. Hundreds of Billions, down the drain...whole industries shafted...the e UK splitting up etc..

Hatred of the poor,sick and unemployed...Punishing poor people, in terms of growth and just the human and societal cost of their persecution., in terms of mental and physical health etc.

It isn't f'cking cheap.
And what is the end goal?
The upside?
A bunch of billionaires and millionaires, pouring poison in our ears, whilst going untaxed as we squabble amongst ourselves and tear ourselves apart?
The abundance of public school walnkers, thinking they are superior because they made everyone elses lives so f'king grim, just to justify the term fees at eton?

Your point might be stronger if you didn't display such 'hatred' of anyone you consider a bit posh.

[I like neeps]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/captain-tom-c ... &tsrc=twtr

Captain Sir Tom's daughter is a massive grifter.

[tabascoboy]

Well, Boris has lucked out with so much shit going down Partygate now well off the agenda

[petej]

Well, Boris has lucked out with so much shit going down Partygate now well off the agenda

I doubt that this is the end of the stuff people have on him. Just not worth releasing it now.

[tabascoboy]

Well, Boris has lucked out with so much shit going down Partygate now well off the agenda

I doubt that this is the end of the stuff people have on him. Just not worth releasing it now.

Well no but the impetus has gone for now, things much more likely to slip under the radar, goodness knows how long before it they can get their teeth back into him.

Boris Johnson returns lockdown party questionnaire to police

Boris Johnson has returned his questionnaire about allegations of Downing Street lockdown breaches to the police, the BBC has been told.

The PM was one of more than 50 people to be sent the document by the Metropolitan Police, which is looking at potential Covid rule-breaking.

Mr Johnson had until 22:00 GMT on Friday to answer the survey.

He has said he did not believe he was breaking any rules, but apologised "for the things we simply didn't get right".

Mr Johnson has received legal advice about his response.

The investigation, Operation Hillman, is examining 12 gatherings on eight dates - some of which the PM has already said he attended - to see if Covid regulations were broken.

The Met has said a fine would be issued to anyone found to have breached Covid regulations. A decision is not expected for weeks.

[C69]

Well, Boris has lucked out with so much shit going down Partygate now well off the agenda

I doubt that this is the end of the stuff people have on him. Just not worth releasing it now.

Yip, Dom will have his pound of flesh.

Just not yet

[Hal Jordan]

After he's exonerated from this woke witch hunt, more pictures.

[C69]

After he's exonerated from this woke witch hunt, more pictures.

Yip it's gonna happen and then the Police will be be accused of a cover up and collusion...

Possibly.

[Hal Jordan]

Either that or during the next PMQs when they get back from their latest richly deserved holidays.

[I like neeps]

What a pleasant bunch.