After 9 years in power Johnson still tries to blame Labour for anything and everything

Scrutiny – what scrutiny! How can parachuted-in Tory candidate Jupp wish to work for this ogre?

“As an exhibition in shameless buck-passing and politicising of a tragedy, it was hard to beat Boris Johnson yesterday.

On national TV, the mask slipped and the fairly disciplined and boringly repetitive candidate we have seen for the last few weeks was revealed as the Bullingdon bully he is.

By talking over, talking back, by dodging and weaving, by deploying straight out lies, Johnson tried to pin the responsibility for the early release of the London Bridge terrorist on a Labour government of nine years ago.

When asked about his own Tory Government of the last decade, that has closed courts, stripped the prison and probation service of budgets and the wherewithal to manage released felons, he squirmed that it was not his government.

It was the Johnson version of “someone else did it and ran away”.

It wasn’t statesmanlike, it wasn’t truthful, it wasn’t even dignified,considering the father of one of the victims had explicitly made a call not to use his son’s death as an excuse for flogging stiffer sentences in an election atmosphere.

It is easy to see why this cowardly Conservative lion is running from the scrutiny of the public.

He’s also running scared from Andrew Neil, though he blustered that he would submit to an interview by the Scots media prosecutor – if only the time could be found.

It is growing increasingly clear that Johnson is unfit for the office of Prime Minister.

The more people see of him, the more obvious it becomes to voters.

He is trying to sneak back into Downing Street without scrutiny and without giving account of himself.

If the polls are to be believed, voters in Scotland have already decided to reject Boris.

Hopefully voters in England will wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late.”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/shameless-coward-boris-johnson-tries-21006507

Farage : “Grabbing pussy” is “how men talk “after a night on the drink”

Beggars belief.

“Nigel Farage has defended Donald Trump‘s “grab them by the pussy” comments and suggested that “men say dreadful things sometimes”.

During a live ITV election debate, the Brexit Party leader was challenged by Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, over his historic defence of the US president ahead of Trump’s visit to the UK.

Farage acknowledged that some of Trump’s comments about grabbing women were “wrong” but that they were what someone might say “on a night out after a drink”.

“It was crass and it was crude and it was wrong – men say dreadful things sometimes. If all of us were called out for what we did on a night out after a drink, none of us would …,” he said. …”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/farage-trump-itv-debate_uk_5de42100e4b0d50f32a42b50?guccounter=1

More Tory “fake news”: eight Tory ads banned by Google

“The Conservatives are running such a rampant fake news campaign that Google is now done with it. The tech giant has [banned] eight separate Tory party online adverts.

There have been many instances of disinformation from the Conservatives this election, such as:

Editing videos to misrepresent Labour figures.
A fake Labour manifesto website.
Pretending to be an independent fact-checker on social media.
Setting up fake encounters with voters for the camera.

And now we have eight banned adverts. Google would not disclose the content of the ads nor the specific reasons why they were removed. But the tech multinational’s guidelines claim that “we don’t allow ads or destinations that deceive users”.

‌“Tories are relying on cynical and dishonest tactics”

Labour Party chair Ian Lavery said:

The fact that the Conservatives are resorting to fake news shows that they have no plans or desire to improve the lives of people in Britain. While Labour is running the biggest, people-powered campaign for real change in a generation, the Tories are relying on cynical and dishonest tactics.

It’s unclear how deceptive the banned ads were. Because there are still Tory ads visible that claim to send users to “Corbyn’s Labour manifesto”, but actually go to “labourmanifesto.co.uk” – a fake Tory-run site.

Even the BBC recently criticised the Conservatives for editing video ads to suggest that BBC presenters endorse the party’s attacks on Labour. The broadcaster said the ads “could damage perceptions of our impartiality”. The thing is, viewers have caught the BBC itself doctoring broadcasted footage on numerous occasions in a way that favours the Conservative Party this election.

Big Tech politics

It’s welcome that Google has acted against what is likely outright fake news from the Tory party. But we must question whether profit-minded big tech companies should really be regulating our political sphere. Another solution could be regulation through parliament while ensuring we uphold free speech.

At present, the UK elections watchdog – the Electoral Commission – has not condemned the Conservative Party’s disinformation this election. When the Tory Press Twitter account pretended to be an independent fact-checker, the Electoral Commission didn’t single out the ruling party, instead saying “voters are entitled to transparency and integrity from campaigners in the lead-up to an election”. The Electoral Commission also said that it doesn’t have a role in “regulating election campaign content”, but the watchdog is asking for greater powers to ensure ads are transparent.

‌Another problem is that fake news can do a lot of damage before a regulator takes it down. That suggests we also need appropriate regulation and punishment to stop people and parties creating fake news in the first place.

Careful action

We must treat any internet regulation with extreme caution because the risks of inadvertently shutting down legitimate speech remain. But Britain surely cannot allow the levels of fake news coming from the Tory party this election. Given the Electoral Commission doesn’t currently have the powers it needs, at least Google has stepped in for now.”

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/12/01/thats-it-google-is-done-with-the-tories-fake-news-campaign/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Council chiefs (including ours) make LOTS of extra money out of elections

We have never known how much EDDC’s CEO Mark Williams has received, or how he has spent his budgets. It seems that there is no barrier to telling us.

Over to you Mr Ingham…. transparency … remember?

A council chief has received nearly £150,000 in four years for being a returning officer on top of his salary, prompting calls for a review of how public officials are paid to oversee elections.

Tom Riordan, Leeds city council’s chief executive, has been paid £147,921.66 in fees since 2015 on top of his £182,085 salary, even though much of the election work was carried out during his normal office hours.

For this month’s general election he is entitled to a further £28,424, making the total fees almost a year’s salary since the 2015 general election.

The council defended the payments and said Riordan could have received even more had he not passed on to his deputies £12,754.33 for this year’s European election.

Council bosses across the country have benefited from a glut of polls in recent years, including three general elections, the EU referendum and the European election. Riordan does not receive a fee for local elections, though many chief executives do.

At Sunderland city council, which traditionally wins the race to declare the first general election result, chiefs have received a total of £140,746 since 2015. The payments, received by four holders of the post, include fees for two police and crime commissioner (PCC) elections and local elections as well as the national and European polls.

The current Sunderland chief executive, Patrick Melia, who has a salary of £180,000, received an extra £50,168 this year for local elections, a PCC vote and the European poll. He stands to get a further £10,008 for next week’s election.

Glasgow city council said Annemarie O’Donnell, its chief executive, had received £122,444.42 since 2015. She is entitled to £21,267 for next week. Her annual salary is £176,855.

O’Donnell’s total, which included a Scottish parliamentary election in 2016, was less than she was entitled to. She declined a fee for the last round of local council elections and an unspecified share of her fees was passed on to staff, charities and community groups.

According to parliamentary fee orders governing payments for returning officers, Manchester city council’s chief executive has been entitled to £94,578 for European and national polls since 2015, with £18,691 due for next week.

The council was unable to confirm whether the two officers who have held the chief executive position had received their full entitlement. Joanne Roney, who has held the role since 2017, has a salary of £205,671.

Newcastle city council confirmed that its chief executive, Pat Ritchie, had received £68,216 in fees on top of her salary, currently £183,891, since 2015. She does not receive payments for local elections but will receive £8,820 for the general election.

The payments were described as “totally unsustainable” by the TaxPayers’ Alliance. Cat Smith, who was Labour’s shadow Cabinet Office minister before parliament was dissolved, has called for a government review into the fee system.

Riordan is thought to be the best-paid returning officer in the country. Leeds is the second-largest local authority area. The largest, Birmingham, operates a pay policy that precludes chiefs from receiving returning officer fees. The entitlement is distributed to less senior staff carrying out election work.

The maximum payments available to returning officers — who are nearly always council chief executives — for national, European and crime commissioner polls are set in parliamentary statutory orders, with the sums calculated according to electorate size.

Most payments are the responsibility of the Cabinet Office, but local authorities take care of council election fees.

In January last year the Cabinet Office said the fees would be part of a wider review into election funding, which has yet to be concluded.

Leeds city council said: “Elections require those involved to work most evenings, weekends and bank holidays for a prolonged period.”

Source: Sunday Times (paywall)

Rogues Gallery: Old codger Tweedledum, wet-behind-the-ears Tweedledee and Frit de Peiffel Johnson!

Gosh, doesn’t Hugo (I’m not going to interfere now I’m no longer an MP) Swire look wrecked! Where has he been! Obviously having a good time now he doesn’t have his fourth part-time job to worry about!

And their boss Frit de Peiffel Johnson

Boris Johnson still FRIT FRIT FRIT

“There is no sign that Boris Johnson will agree to an interview with Andrew Neil before the end of the election campaign, with both the BBC and the Conservatives simply saying that negotiations are ongoing.

With little over a week until polling day, the prime minister has still not set a date for his one-on-one interview on primetime television, despite every other party leader agreeing to take part. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/01/boris-johnson-not-agreeing-andrew-neil-interview?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Book Review – Boris Johnson “72 Virgins” (a real book by Bojo available on Amazon)

“So it turns out In 2004, Boris Johnson wrote a “book of fiction” called ’72 Virgins’.

It’s about a group of Islamic terrorists who attack Westminster, whose plot is then foiled by a bicycling Tory MP known for tousled hair, classical allusions and flapping shirt-tails.

As the story develops, the protagonist seizes the opportunity to make himself such a lauded global hero that the media will deem it absolutely futile to print the latest thing he doesn’t want his wife to discover.

Ever the cretinous glutton, with a deeply false belief in his own guile, that very subplot increased in intrigue when, within two months of publication, fiction turned fact and Johnson was sacked from the shadow cabinet after the then Tory leader, Michael Howard, judged him to have lied to the party and to the public about his extramarital affair (lying no longer seems to be a sackable offence for conservative politicians, but rather the gold standard).

This book is brimming with terms such as “alpha male,” “Islamic nutcases” and “a mega-titted six-footer”. Arabs are casually noted to have “hook noses” and “slanty eyes”; A mixed-race Briton is called “coffee-coloured”; and slurs of “pikeys” and people who are “half-caste”.

Imagine the absolute outrage if Jeremy Corbyn wrote this book?

Laura Kuenssberg would never shut up squawking about it!
The BBC would lead with it on every story & it would be front page of every tabloid rag!

But he didn’t, Johnson did, so, of course, we NEVER hear about it.

He describes French people as ‘turds’ and makes strange personal attacks on Sierra Leone.

In the final third of the book, the plot becomes rushed and there are multitudinous printing and grammatical errors, and a number of sentences that literally do not make any sense.

The novel’s attitude to women is so rampantly sexist, it is depressing. In the 20 occasions in which women enter the narrative either the narrator or a character sizes them up and down, phwoaring over, to give a few examples: “tits out”, “lustrous eyes”, “long legs”, “a mega-titted six-footer”, “loads of pretty white teeth”, “good teeth and blonde hair”, and an “unambiguously exuberant bosom”.

One Female characters comment is attributed to her “premenstrual irrationality”, there are also appearances from a “girly swot” and a woman who looks “like a lingerie model, only cleverer and, if anything, with bigger breasts”, it actually reads like it was written by a horny teenager rather than an Eton educated prime minister.

If anyone feel the need to rush out and buy this, it’s on Amazon for £7.49, however Fultons are selling 6 rolls of Andrex for £3 saving you £4.49.”

Source: Dan Lambert, Facebook

More Tory dirty tricks

“A Conservative parliamentary candidate has been asked to explain the addition of two swastikas to campaign placards which were apparently defaced in 2017, and were photographed at the time but did not feature any such Nazi insignia.

In June 2017, during that year’s election campaign, Simon Hart, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, who has represented the constituency since 2010, uploaded a photograph to Twitter of one of his campaign placards.

It appeared to have been vandalised so that after the words “Simon Hart” a scrawled message in black marker pen added: “WILL STARVE YOUR NAN AND STEAL HER HOUSE!”

The image generated some sympathy for Mr Hart, and was used in a subsequent article published by WalesOnline, about the abuse MPs including Mr Hart suffered during the election.

Local press claim Mr Hart has used the incident as a campaigning platform since 2017. …”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/simon-hart-pembrokeshire-swastika-graffiti-nazi-sympathy-election-christina-rees-a9226291.html

Jupp’s boss Dominic Raab in danger of losing his seat to Lib Dem

Swire gone.

Raab might be going

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/30/poll-finds-dominic-raab-risks-losing-seat-to-lib-dems?

Jupp …… ?

Not really a good time to be a “parachuted central casting Tory” with two “mentors” at such a low ebb!

Let’s make it all three out.

Remember: a vote for anyone other than Claire Wright is a vote for the Tories!

A suggestion to the BBC …

If Johnson will not be interviewed by Andrew Neil but WILL be interviewed by Andrew Marr (and maybe by the anodyne One Show) replace the original presenter with Neil live on air, and wait to see what happens next!

Boris called “pub bore” for lacklustre radio interview

“It was like two pub bores talking about weather: HENRY DEEDES listens as PM takes on a Ferrari”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7740633/It-like-two-pub-bores-talking-weather-HENRY-DEEDES-listens-PM-takes-Ferrari.html

Tories slammed by other Tories for introducing a Labour-type solution post-Brexit!

Owl says: but if we are all going to be richer by leaving the EU, why will this be needed?

And in a “free market” aren’t uneconomic businesses supposed to fail? Confused(dot) Owl!

Tories slammed by free market groups over state aid pledges.

Business and free market groups slammed pledges today by Boris Johnson to expand state aid for businesses if the Conservative Party win the upcoming election.

In a press conference today, Johnson promised to expand Britain’s state aid regime once the UK leaves the EU.

“We will back British businesses by introducing a new state aid regime which makes it faster and easier for the government to intervene to protect jobs when an industry is in trouble,” a briefing document said.

Head of regulatory affairs at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) Victoria Hewson said support for state aid was “veiled support for cronyism.”

“For all the lip service the Conservatives pay to free markets and free enterprise, today’s announcements about state aid call into question their basic understanding of how these systems work,” she said.

“Calls to expand state aid translate to veiled support for cronyism. Interventionist and protectionist policies always end up disadvantaging smaller businesses in favour of a few giants.”

A spokesperson for the Institute of Directors said: “It’s not clear how these proposals will fit with ambitions of a ‘Global Britain’. The Conservatives must be wary of opening a can of worms on state aid, it’s important to have consistent rules in place to resist the impulse of unwarranted protectionism.” … “

Tories slammed by free market groups over state aid pledges

“IFS warn austerity ‘baked in’ a Tory manifesto with ‘notable’ lack of social care funding”

In a dire warning the IFS added: “even in 2023–24 day-to-day spending on public services outside of health would still be almost 15 per cent lower in real terms that it was at the start of the 2010s.”

“The Institute for Fiscal Studies is deeply unimpressed at what it deemed a “lack of significant policy action” in the Conservative Party manifesto.

The Tory social care crisis for Britain’s elderly and infirm that Johnson had promised to fix when he became PM did not even get a mention in the manifesto. Johnson had previously claimed that he had a plan ready to sort it out.

The IFS concluded that the manifesto plans meant people expecting relief for Britain’s public services after a decade of austerity would instead see “cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in.”

Economic researchers at the independent think tank calculated that the National Insurance threshold rise to £9,500 that Boris Johnson appeared to have lied or been mistaken about will actually only save most in paid work “less than £2 a week” and highlighted the “notable omission” for any plan to deal with the crisis in social care funding.

Nigel Edwards, chief executive at the Nuffield Trust, an independent health think tank, said he was “bitterly disappointed” to see “unnecessary delay” in tackling the issue of social care.

IFS director Paul Johnson said: “If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals, we would have been calling it modest.

“As a blueprint for five years in government, the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.”

Main manifesto pledges quickly debunked

Speaking at a launch event in Telford, Boris Johnson reaffirmed his commitment to take the UK out of the EU by the end of January, so they could “forge a new Britain”. “We will get Brexit done and we will end the acrimony and the chaos,” he said.

As well as a flagship promise of 50,000 more nurses for the NHS in England despite Brexit “chaos”, the manifesto included a U-turn restoring maintenance grants for student nurses previously scrapped by the Tories.

Tory sources later acknowledged that about 30,000 of the additional nurses would come from measures to retain existing staff rather than new recruits, and the main Tory manifesto pledge was debunked among other claims by a fact checking service within hours of the launch. Labour called the Tory figures “deceitful.”

Chief executive Will Moy said the Conservative Party could “do more to meet the standards we expect” after investigating its pledges on paving the way for 50,000 new nurses and limiting day-to-day spending increases to only £3 billion, despite promising a litany of public services investment.

The fact checkers also slammed Johnson’s use the the slogan “get Brexit done”, a phrase that appears 22 times in the manifesto including on the cover, when a deal with the European Union could take “years to negotiate”.

“The Brexit process will not be completed by January,” despite what Johnson keeps repeating said the independent organisation.

‘Older people face a triple whammy’

“After a decade of the Conservatives cutting our NHS, police and schools, all Boris Johnson is offering is more of the same: more cuts, more failure, and years more of Brexit uncertainty,” Jeremy Corbyn responded.

He added: “Boris Johnson can’t be trusted. Older people face a triple whammy as he has failed to protect free TV licences for over 75s, refused to grant justice to women unfairly affected by the increase in the state pension age, and not offered a plan or extra money to fix the social care crisis.”

The lacklustre manifesto may be down to Conservative complacency after recent polls. The latest polling released on Sunday, created by Datapraxis using YouGov polling and voter interviews, suggested the Tories were on course to secure their largest Commons majority since 1987 – a majority of almost 50 MPs.

This would mean if Boris Johnson met the public services spending promises in his manifesto the UK would still be looking at a decade of cuts “baked into” our services, according to the IFS analysis.

Boris Johnson’s broken promise to fix Tory social care crisis

Paul Johnson of the IFS’ initial reaction to the Tory manifesto was scathing: “If the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos were notable for the scale of their ambitions the Conservative one is not. If a single Budget had contained all these tax and spending proposals we would have been calling it modest. As a blueprint for five years in government the lack of significant policy action is remarkable.

“In part that is because the chancellor announced some big spending rises back In September. Other than for health and schools, though, that was a one-off increase. Taken at face value today’s manifesto suggests that for most services, in terms of day-to-day spending, that’s it. Health and school spending will continue to rise. Give or take pennies, other public services, and working age benefits, will see the cuts to their day-to-day budgets of the last decade baked in.”

“One notable omission is any plan for social care. In his first speech as prime minister Boris Johnson promised to ‘fix the crisis in social care once and for all’. After two decades of dither by both parties in government it seems we are no further forward.

“On the tax side the rise in the National Insurance threshold was well trailed. The ambition for it to get to £12,500 may remain, but only the initial rise to £9,500 has been costed and firmly promised. Most in paid work would benefit, but by less than £2 a week. Another £6 billion would need to be found to get to £12,500 by the end of the parliament. Given the pressures on the spending side that is not surprising.”

“Perhaps the biggest, and least welcome, announcement is the ‘triple tax lock’: no increases in rates of income tax, NICs or VAT. That’s a constraint the chancellor may come to regret. It is also part of a fundamentally damaging narrative – that we can have the public services we want, with more money for health and pensions and schools – without paying for them. We can’t.”

School cuts barely reversed

The Conservative manifesto confirmed previous commitments in England to increase school spend in England by £7.1 billion by 2022–23. However, that would leave spend per pupil in real terms after a decade of austerity at the same level as 13 years ago, the IFS explained.

In contrast the IFS found the Labour commitment of a £7.5 billion real terms increase by 2022–23 a 14.6% rise in spending per pupil.

Unlike Labour and the Liberal Democrats the Conservative manifesto refused to extend free, pre-school childcare.

IFS researchers warned that the Conservative manifesto pledges left “little scope for spending increases beyond next year outside of those planned for health and schools.”

In a dire warning the IFS added: “even in 2023–24 day-to-day spending on public services outside of health would still be almost 15 per cent lower in real terms that it was at the start of the 2010s.”

@BenGelblum

IFS warn austerity ‘baked in’ a Tory manifesto with ‘notable’ lack of social care funding

Actor Hugh Grant endorses Claire Wright

“Famous British actor, Hugh Grant, has tweeted his support for Claire Wright – the Independent Prospective Parliamentary Candidate for the East Devon constituency.

Yesterday (November 28), he retweeted a post promoting Claire Wright, adding the caption: “Dear LD [Liberal Democrats], Green and Labour voters of East Devon, do this for your country. We beg you.”

Claire Wright responded to the actor’s nod with the comment: “Thanks Hugh! Love Actually is my fave Christmas film btw! Romance and politics!!!”

Grant, who famously played Britain’s Prime Minister in Love Actually (2003), is pedalling a real-life political agenda in the run-up to the General Election.

His Twitter feed @HackedOffHugh is dedicated to a campaign against the Conservative party winning a majority of seats in parliament on December 12.

He has retweeted a number of posts imploring members of certain constituencies to vote for parties, which are in with a chance of toppling the Conservative lead.”

https://exmouth.nub.news/n/actor-hugh-grant-rallies-behind-east-devon-independent-claire-wright

Axminster ‘Master Plan’ – back to the drawing board but don’t upset the developers!

See pages 12-18 here:

https://democracy.eastdevon.gov.uk/documents/g1348/Public%20reports%20pack%2009th-Dec-2019%2010.00%20Strategic%20Planning%20Committee.pdf?T=10

What a mess! Houses but no road?

Recommendations:

“That Members:

1. Accept that it is not going to be possible to progress with the Housing Infrastructure Fund bid as things stand and that the offer is likely to be withdrawn unless Homes England change their position on land values

2. Re-engage the consultants for the Axminster Urban Extension Masterplan to:

a) review options to enable as much of the development in the masterplan to proceed accepting that this would be ahead of delivery of the relief road in its entirety
b) update the viability of the project to reflect the latest cost estimates and funding position
c) consider the re-phasing of the development in light of the failure of the HIF bid

3. Agree that a Housing Delivery Action Plan be produced to consider how to bolster the housing land supply position in the district and that this be considered by Strategic Planning Committee alongside a revised Axminster Masterplan.”

Top Brexiteer James Dyson massively expands operations in new HQ Singapore

” Dyson has chosen former nightclub complex Saint James Power Station as its new Singapore headquarters, saying it would provide a “most inspiring backdrop” for its staff.

The 110,000 square foot site had housed one of the largest nightlife destinations in Singapore up until last year, with 11 so-called “concepts” including nightclubs and food sites.

Dyson said the property would be converted into research laboratories, which would allow it to double the number of engineers and scientists it could employ in Singapore over the next five years. Currently, around 1,200 people work for the British business in Singapore, of which more than 350 are engineers.

Jim Rowan, chief executive of Dyson, said: “After 12 years of growth in Singapore, continuing expansion in the UK, and growing sales globally, we have outgrown our current technology centre in Singapore.

“It will be a hive for our research and development endeavours.”

The company announced it was moving its headquarters from the UK to Singapore in January – a decision which prompted a public backlash amid claims Dyson was abandoning its heritage and potentially depriving the UK of millions of pounds of tax revenue. …

… The company had insisted the HQ move was a commercial decision given its manufacturing base and supply chain is located in the Far East, saying having management there “makes sense”.

Some had pointed to Singapore’s more lenient tax regime compared to the UK, with corporate tax at 17pc compared to 19pc in Britain, although Dyson has denied suggestions its decision was related to tax.

Since moving its headquarters, the company’s founder Sir James Dyson has bought a three-storey penthouse in the city for a reported S$73.8m (£43.3m). It is located at the top of Singapore’s tallest building, the Guoco Tower.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/11/28/dyson-picks-former-nightclub-new-singapore-base-uk-exit/