Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Josquius]

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2021/apr/21/covid-coronavirus-sleaze-labour-johnson-tax-breaks-james-dyson-pmqs-politics-live-latest-updates?page=with:block-60800ee58f08a84aa59198f9#block-60800ee58f08a84aa59198f9

PMQs - Snap verdict
In the 1990s it was widely assumed that "sleaze" inflicted terminal damage on the reputation of the Conservative government (although, in practice, Black Wednesday and the election of a new, dynamic opposition leader probably did more to shift the dial). One of the big questions now is whether it can do the same today. On the basis of today's exchanges, it is impossible to come to a firm conclusion either way. Keir Starmer certainly inflicted some damage, but probably not as much as Labour may have been hoping for judging by the party's comments on the Johnson/Dyson affair this morning (see 9.01am).

The difficulty for Starmer is that, on the specifics of whether Boris Johnson was right to intervene in the way that he did to facilitate a company deploying staff to the UK for an emergency ventilator procurement effort when the first phase of the pandemic was at its height, many or most relatively neutral observers would side with Johnson. That is certainly the view of Tony Blair (see 9.54am), a leader who normally had quite an astute view of how non-politicos see the world, and if you were scoring PMQs on just the first two Starmer questions, Johnson would have won hands down. Perhaps Starmer would have done better to avoid asking about the James Dyson messages specifically, although that would have blunted his case from the off.

But after the first two questions Starmer broadened this out into a more general point about preferential access, and at this point his arguments started to prevail. Echoing a line used by Lucy Powell on the Today programme earlier (see 9.38am), Starmer asked about all those not blessed with PM's mobile phone number. Would steel workers get more help if they could text Johnson? Or the 3 million self-employed? Or nurses unhappy about their proposed pay rise? All of these points were effective, and Johnson's responses to them were relatively weak.

Starmer concluded with a catch-all diatribe.

The prime minister is fixing tax breaks for his friends, the chancellor is pushing the Treasury to help Lex Greensill, the health secretary is meeting Greensill for drinks, and David Cameron is texting anybody who will reply.

Every day there are new allegations about this Conservative government: dodgy PPE deals; tax breaks for their mates; the health secretary owns shares in a company delivering NHS services. Sleaze, sleaze, sleaze, and it's all on his watch.

With this scandal now firmly centred on him, how on earth does he expect people to believe that he is the person to clean this mess up?

...

[Sheilbh]

So I basically agree with that take - I don't think sleaze is landing now because it either relates to a previous government/cabinet or we have a company helping (and making a loss) during a national crisis and people don't care about process in that situation. But I think sleaze will be an issue with this government and it makes sense for Labour to put down a marker now - it's going to be something they will probably refer to again and can build attacks on it. I think it's a theme they'll be picking up and varying on this for a lot of the next five years.

Incidentally on the mention of steel workers - that's something I find slightly annoying about the coal mine in Cumbria furore. That mine is to produce coke for steel. I wanted strong government intervention to save British steel manufacturing because I think it's important to have some of that industry in the UK. So it just feels like if I think we should have steel industry in this country, I should be willing to have the carbon impact of that industry in this country too rather than importing coal from somewhere else - but I don't know if maybe I'm crazy on that

[Tamas]

BTW why is it called sleaze when its corruption?

[Josquius]

BTW why is it called sleaze when its corruption?

The two do mean much the same.
Though that does get towards a point that 'corruption' is one of those words in the UK that people just take to mean 'thing I don't like'.

[Sheilbh]

BTW why is it called sleaze when its corruption?

I think it goes back to the Major government where sleaze was a big issue.

Major tried to re-launch his government after Black Wednesday with a big speech about going "back to basics". In the next five years various stories came out - his ex Chancellor who rented a flat underneath his "sex therapist", the Tory MP who died wearing stockings in an auto-erotic asphyxiation accident, David Mellor shagging his secretary wearing only his Chelsea football shirt (and then dragging his family out to do a press conference), numerous MPs getting caught accepting cash in brown envelopes  from Mohamed al-Fayed to ask questions in the House of Commons, Jonathan Aitken getting done for perjury over the cash for arms scandal (selling weapons to Saddam Hussein), the homes for votes scandal where Westminster City Council was caught removing homeless people and then saying they didn't need the council homes they still had so selling them on to likely Conservative voters. Plus obviously the seemingly endless stream of Tory MPs caught cottaging or going on holiday with rent boys.

I feel like there were 4-5 scandals of that type every year between 1992 and 1997 - not least because if you say you're going "back to basics", then the press will be looking for dirt

But all of those scandals were covered by catch-all "sleaze". It's now part of the lexicon of British politics. And Blair was absolutely merciless on hammering them on it.

I personally think Starmer could learn a lot from Blair's attack lines against Major: sleaze, "weak, weak, weak", "I lead my party, he follows his". I think a lot of those apply or will apply to Johnson - if Starmer can get a hearing.

(Just confirmed - it's a 90s thing:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sleaze&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csleaze%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Csleaze%3B%2Cc0)

[Sheilbh]

The two do mean much the same.
Though that does get towards a point that 'corruption' is one of those words in the UK that people just take to mean 'thing I don't like'.

Yeah - I personally prefer "sleaze" and "sleazy" because it's almost got a sort of onomatopoeia-like quality to it. The word sounds sleazy.

Edit: From the Guardian on today's PMQs - I think part of the problem on the left in the UK is contained in the apparent disdain shown here for a politician "liking popularity" which in a democracy is an important part of the job

Boris Johnson has promised a "root-and-branch" review into the way football is run will consider how to boost the role of fans. The Conservatives aren't generally big on regulation but they do like popularity. Only time will tell whether anything comes of the review to be carried out by former sports minister, Tracey Crouch. At prime minister's questions Johnson said the European Super League proposals would have taken clubs from English towns and cities and turned them "just into global brands with no relation to the fans, to the communities that gave them life and that give them the most love and support. That was, in my view, totally wrong, to say nothing of the lack of competition."

[Sheilbh]

Fairly savage comment by a journalist on Cameron's lobbying skills noting that the only institution that did give Greensill any state-backed loans was the British Business Bank, which Cameron didn't contact

[Sheilbh]

I've mentioned it before - but today's the latest in the saga of the sub-postmasters which I think is the biggest corporate scandal in the UK in recent years it's an absolute disgrace:

Post Office scandal: What the Horizon saga is all about

By Kevin Peachey
Personal finance correspondent, BBC News

A group of former sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, who say they were victims of a massive miscarriage of justice, are awaiting a ruling by the Court of Appeal.

It marks the latest stage of a computer scandal, and a long and complex legal battle, which could leave the Post Office with a huge compensation bill.

What is this all about?

Between 2000 and 2014, the Post Office prosecuted 736 sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses - an average of one a week - based on information from a recently installed computer system called Horizon.

Some went to prison following convictions for false accounting and theft, many were financially ruined and have described being shunned by their communities. Some have since died.

After 20 years, campaigners won a legal battle to have their cases reconsidered, after claiming that the computer system was flawed.

What was Horizon?

Horizon was introduced into the Post Office network from 1999. The system, developed by the Japanese company Fujitsu, was used for tasks such as transactions, accounting and stocktaking.

Sub-postmasters complained about bugs in the system after it reported shortfalls, some of which amounted to many thousands of pounds.

Some sub-postmasters attempted to plug the gap with their own money, even remortgaging their homes, in an (often fruitless) attempt to correct an error.

What was the effect on individuals?

Many former postmasters and postmistresses have described how the saga ruined their lives.

They had to cope with the long-term impact of a criminal conviction and imprisonment, some at a time when they had been pregnant or had young children.

Marriages broke down, and courts have heard how some families believe the stress led to health conditions, addiction and premature deaths.

"The past nine years have been hellish and a total nightmare. This conviction has been a cloud over my life," said former Oxfordshire sub-postmaster Vipinchandra Patel, whose name was cleared late last year.

Seema Misra was pregnant with her second child when she was convicted of theft and sent to jail in 2010 and is now waiting to hear if her conviction will be quashed. She said that she had been "suffering" for 15 years as a result of the saga.

What was the turning point?

In December 2019, at the end of a long-running series of civil cases, the Post Office agreed to settle with 555 claimants.

It accepted it had previously "got things wrong in [its] dealings with a number of postmasters", and agreed to pay £58m in damages.

The claimants received a share of £12m, after legal fees were paid.

A few days later, a High Court judgement said that the Horizon system was not "remotely robust" for the first 10 years of its use, and still had problems after that.

The judge said the system contained "bugs, errors and defects", and that there was a "material risk" that shortfalls in branch accounts were caused by the system.

Why is the current hearing significant?

Following the High Court ruling, more cases were brought forward to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), an independent body which investigates suspected miscarriages of justice.

So far, it has referred 51 cases back to the courts. To date, six people's convictions have been overturned.

Another 42 cases were heard in one hearing at the Court of Appeal in March.

Of these, 39 were unopposed by the Post Office on at least one count - generally that the person did not receive a fair trial.

That means those 39 convictions are almost certain to be quashed - making this the most widespread known miscarriage of justice in the UK.

Judges will publish their ruling on Friday.

What happens next?

The ruling will determine whether these convictions were also "an affront to the public conscience".

If judges say they were, the postmasters may pursue civil action against the Post Office for malicious prosecution, seeking significant sums in damages.

Three more cases referred by the CCRC have yet to be heard.

It is also reviewing 22 more cases, and inviting others to make an application, which could go directly to the Court of Appeal, if a conviction is believed to be unsafe.

What about other affected postmasters and postmistresses?

The Post Office has set up a historic shortfall scheme designed to repay those who lost out, but this excludes those who were part of the High Court settlement.

More than 2,400 claims have been made to the scheme. Ministers said this was more than the Post Office expected and held the potential for the government having to step in to cover some of the cost.

An inquiry set up "to establish a clear account of the failings of the Horizon IT computer system, and assess whether lessons have been learnt at the Post Office" will report in the summer.

The Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance campaign group, which was instrumental in the High Court battle, refused to take part, describing it as a whitewash and calling for a full public inquiry instead.

Has anyone been held accountable?

So far, nobody at the Post Office or Fujitsu has been held accountable, although the High Court judge said he would refer Fujitsu to the Director of Public Prosecutions for possible further action because he had "grave concerns" about the evidence of the company's employees.

I'd add the High Court ruling - which was a pre-trial decision - did find a fair amount of evidence that the Post OFfice was aware of problems within the systems while they were prosecuting people.

Edit: And the Court of Appeal has quashed all 39 convictions and the Post Office's failings were so egregious it was an "affront to the conscience" of the court so those individuals can now seek civil remedies against the Post Office.

[Sheilbh]

The Electoral Commission's final tally from the 2019 election. The Lib Dems outspent Labour

[Josquius]

I am very skeptical of these numbers and how much value there is in spending controls these days.
I suspect much of the tories and labours spending was via very off the record means.

[Valmy]

The Electoral Commission's final tally from the 2019 election. The Lib Dems outspent Labour

Yeah but both spent basically nothing from my American perspective.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah but both spent basically nothing from my American perspective.

Oh for sure - I mean a UK general election for 650 seats will cost a lot less than a competitive Senate race.

I am very skeptical of these numbers and how much value there is in spending controls these days.
I suspect much of the tories and labours spending was via very off the record means.

But what are they spending it on? They can't have TV adverts outside specified party political broadcasts - there's only so much you can spend on targeted online advertising and leaflets. And if the Lib Dems can spend over £10 million on the normal stuff I feel like they could afford to learn what the super-secret spending options for the Tories and Labour are.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Interesting result in the XR court case :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56853979

Trial by jury 

[Sheilbh]

The latest in Cummings drama

Downing Street have apparently started to suspect that the source of a number of leaks - including the Dyson texts and the Tory donors paying for renovations (which is far dodgier) - Dominic Cummings and have accused him of it. Now Cummings is back to blogging and accused Johnson of possibly illegal acts (my initial take is if a story about graft has been out there for four weeks and hasn't cut through yet, it won't unless there's some new dramatic revelation - which this ain't) plus lots of gossip about who is the leak etc:

April 23, 2021 by dominiccummings   
Statement regarding No10 claims today

The Prime Minister's new Director of Communications Jack Doyle, at the PM's request, has made a number of false accusations to the media.

1. Re Dyson. I do have some WhatsApp messages between the PM/Dyson forwarded to me by the PM. I have not found the ones that were leaked to Laura Kuenssberg on my phone nor am I aware of being sent them last year. I was not directly or indirectly a/the source for the BBC/Kuenssberg story on the PM/Dyson texts. Yesterday some No10 officials told me that No10 would make this accusation and told me what they believe actually happened — that Dyson's office emailed a number of officials, including HMT officials, and included screenshots of the PM/Dyson texts, and that this correspondence, from roughly a year ago, was passed to the BBC. I do not know if this is correct. Officials told me yesterday that I was not copied in on this correspondence and I do not remember it (I no longer have access to my official email so cannot check this).

I am happy to meet with the Cabinet Secretary and for him to search my phone for Dyson messages. If the PM did send them to me, as he is claiming, then he will be able to show the Cabinet Secretary on his own phone when they were sent to me. It will therefore be easy to establish at least if I was ever sent these messages. I am also happy to publish or give to the Cabinet Secretary the PM/Dyson messages that I do have, which concerned ventilators, bureaucracy and covid policy — not tax issues.

2. Re lockdown. Last year there was a meeting between the PM, Cabinet Secretary, the Director of Communications and me regarding the leak of the decision for a further lockdown on the Friday evening immediately after the meeting in the Cabinet Room that made the decision (known in the media as 'the chatty rat story'). The Cabinet Secretary told the PM that the leak was neither me nor the then Director of Communications and that 'all the evidence definitely leads to Henry Newman and others in that office, I'm just trying to get the communications data to prove it'. The PM was very upset about this. He said to me afterwards, 'If Newman is confirmed as the leaker then I will have to fire him, and this will cause me very serious problems with Carrie as they're best friends ... [pause] perhaps we could get the Cabinet Secretary to stop the leak inquiry?"

I told him that this was 'mad' and totally unethical, that he had ordered the inquiry himself and authorised the Cabinet Secretary to use more invasive methods than are usually applied to leak inquiries because of the seriousness of the leak. I told him that he could not possibly cancel an inquiry about a leak that affected millions of people, just because it might implicate his girlfriend's friends. I refused to try to persuade the Cabinet Secretary to stop the inquiry and instead I encouraged the Cabinet Secretary to conduct the inquiry without any concern for political ramifications. I told the Cabinet Secretary that I would support him regardless of where the inquiry led. I warned some officials that the PM was thinking about cancelling the inquiry. They would give evidence to this effect under oath to any inquiry. I also have WhatsApp messages with very senior officials about this matter which are definitive.

Shortly afterwards the Cabinet Secretary authorised the PM's then Official Spokesman to tell the media that his inquiry had shown that neither I nor the then Director of Communications were the 'lockdown leakers' and he confirmed to me in writing that he had so instructed the PM's then Official Spokesman (who subsequently left). The PM himself also confirmed in writing that the leak inquiry had shown that neither I nor the then Director of Communications was the leaker, describing rumours to this effect as 'total bullshit'.

The PM therefore knows that I was not the source of the leak and that the Cabinet Secretary authorised the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman to tell the media this, yet he has now authorised his DOC to make this accusation.

The Cabinet Secretary knows the above is true and obviously can see our messages regarding this on his own phone. He behaved with complete integrity during this difficult incident.

These events contributed to my decision to stick to my plan to leave No10 by 18 December, which I had communicated to the PM in July the day before my long-delayed operation.

3. Re the flat. The Prime Minister's DOC has also made accusations regarding me and leaks concerning the PM's renovation of his flat. The PM stopped speaking to me about this matter in 2020 as I told him I thought his plans to have donors secretly pay for the renovation were unethical, foolish, possibly illegal and almost certainly broke the rules on proper disclosure of political donations if conducted in the way he intended. I refused to help him organise these payments. My knowledge about them is therefore limited. I would be happy to tell the Cabinet Secretary or Electoral Commission what I know concerning this matter.

4. I have made the offer to hand over some private text messages, even though I am under no legal obligation to do so, because of the seriousness of the claims being made officially by No10 today, particularly the covid leak that caused serious harm to millions. This does not mean that I will answer every allegation made by No10.

The proper way for such issues to be handled is via an urgent Parliamentary inquiry into the government's conduct over the covid crisis which ought to take evidence from all key players under oath and have access to documents. Issues concerning covid and/or the PM's conduct should not be handled as No10 has handled them over the past 24 hours. I will cooperate fully with any such inquiry and am happy to give evidence under oath. I am happy for No10 to publish every email I received and sent July 2019-November 2020 (with no exceptions other than, obviously, some national security / intelligence issues).

It is sad to see the PM and his office fall so far below the standards of competence and integrity the country deserves.

I will not engage in media briefing regarding these issues but will answer questions about any of these issues to Parliament on 26 May for as long as the MPs want.

ENDS

Also I do love that Cummings wasn't fired but decided to leave 6 months earlier and this apparently never leaked anywhere which seems implausible .