While I do agree with the general sentiment, I think this is nowhere near as bad as other recent appointments, given a) that she's getting relatively little money for it,* b) the subject she's been brought in to tackle is one that is often overlooked and does require tackling and reform, and c) she does appear to actually be qualified for and passionate about the job.

Perhaps there should have been an interview process, but this doesn't strike me as "let's find a way to bung you some money, shall we?" but more as "you're talking a lot of sense. I think we could do well by hiring you".

The majority of job hires come about through knowing the right people. Sometimes that can lead to unqualified people getting jobs because their mates are in the position to give it to them, but it can also mean that people get jobs that they're suited for because the people in the position to hire people already know their ability and their character. This strikes me as much more akin to the latter than the former.

*£8,400 a year isn't nothing, certainly, but it's not the more traditional millions, either.

I don't entirely disagree, she certainly seems one of the more appropriate choices this government has made. But on the money side, this is two days days a month, £370/day, so no, it's not a fortune, but it's not a part time gig most people would turn their nose up at either & very reminiscent of the non-exec & consultancy positions that people in these circles such as MPs stack up.

And as with the PPE contracts, although giving the contracts to people who couldn't deliver or charged over the odds was the worst part, it was also the crap icing on the corruption cake. When the field is narrowed down to legitimate suppliers offering quality goods or services at the appropriate price, when government money is being handed out the process should be transparent and fair to all qualified to apply not dependent on having a personal connection to Ministers, spads or the PM's girlfriend.

For comparison: programming contracts in the UK the median daily rate is £475 and the 10% percentile (lowest 10%) daily rate is £310. £525 and £353 for java.

Source https://www.itjobswatch.co.uk/contracts/uk/java.do

And another example of our current excuse for a government's chumocracy - https://www.theguardian.com/society/...t-matt-hancock - as well as being yet another example for my continuous tirade about useless, bullying NHS management.

I mean, it's not like every single NHS trust has a specific policy concerning whistle blowers nor any policies concerning bullying and harassment. I mean why would they have such policies? It's not like anyone needs them, is it?

So it appears that even with a pandemic fiasco and a looming Brexit disaster Boris thought, 'you know I don't think I'm being criticized enough, what else can I do?'

Peter Cruddas: PM overrules watchdog with Tory donor peerage

Johnson really just doesn't care how blatantly he displays his cronyism, he simply can't imagine ever being held to account.

He probably can’t understand what is wrong with what he is doing.

In addition to the fifty grand to Johnson he's given the Tory Party between one & three point five million.

Purely coincidentally.

Obviously. One wouldn't want commit a "Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc" fallacy.

The money was just resting in the accounts...

Donating lots of money to political parties has always been a route to becoming ennobled. And it's not only the Tory party - they're all at it.

Best solution, in my opinion, would be to just scrap the House of Lords entirely. If you must have a revising 'upper chamber' then simply choose the members in the same way juries are chosen - by random selection from the entire population - and limit their term of office to five years. You could allow anyone rich enough to buy their way out of having to serve by paying some extravagant sum, say a million pounds to start with, to HMRC.

Britons overseas have no right to our help, says Foreign Office

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...fice-99gscp5kt

So long as Johnson is PM that might not be as bad a thing as it sounds.

He couldn’t even be bothered to read his briefing notes about her when he was FS and was going to be asked about her arrests, trial and imprisonment and as a result of yet another one of his mistakes someone else had to pay.

I disagree with this. The House of Lords brings a much needed elderly and wise restraint on the shenanigans of the hoi polloi who will vote for anything if it includes the price of beer coming down. These are old heads who have seen it all before and it is good to have someone there to rein in the likes of the styled mobs. For example, the ERG and its madcap schemes.

It's all on Johnson's head.

deleted

What a strange interpretation. From their website:
Before the reorganisation, when it was the FCO, not FCDO, their statement was:
So, they have somewhat de-emphasized support for British nationals, but surely they still are responsible.

I agree with the original post, bring back British Rail, the privatised system keeps failing.

It’s pretty much been nationalised... only in a much more expensive manner that envisioned!

Oh, look - https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-tory-majority - what a surprise!

It gives one some hope that we aren’t all idiots.

Agreed, it would be much better to do the job properly.

Oh, be assured that more than enough of them will forget this whole era quickly enough when we enter the run up to an election and the Tory propaganda machine gets into full swing.

Yes, and the Tories will be quick to swap leader if necessary. Maybe the chancellor! A chance to vote for a black PM!

And then, as with last year, they will pretend that the current shower were a different party altogether...

"Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice - stability and strong government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband."

David Cameron, 4 May 2015

I suppose we're in the unique position of having elected someone because they portrayed themselves as a posh incompetent buffoon & being shocked to find that we got what it said on the can. Who'd have thought that would go wrong?

This morning he's not looking like such a bad choice in comparison.

Dave

You know why David Cameron won in 2015 though don't you ?

He offered a referendum.
Ed Miliband ruled out a referendum.

If both had offered the referendum, David Cameron would have lost.

So you had a referendum. Now everyone loses.
:rolleyes:

Because England ALWAYS votes Tory?

Because Milliband ate a bacon butty?

Because the same racists and xenophobes who want to leave the EU were concerned about immigration in 2015?

:alert: This claim is unsubstantiated by evidence and is disputed.

:D :thumbsup:

The difference between the UK and the USA is the attempted coup by storming the Capitol failed whereas in the UK Boris' illegal dissolving and proroguing of parliament succeeded.

There seems to be a mass deletion of tweets by Tory MPs today.

looks like they are deleting Toby Young retweets and all the pro Trump ones too.

So 'Boris' Johnson visited Scotland in the middle of a pandemic. His approval rating there is low and over 50% want independence. Clearly, Johnson and Westminster are not popular there. So what does he do, he decides to go on a photo shoot, given all the pictures of him ham-fistedly trying to use some ancient multi-pipette and wearing science-y-looking goggles and a white coat. He looks like a toddler concentrating hard on hand eye-coordination. Perhaps he had had a skinful the night before.

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/s...423280130?s=20

https://twitter.com/AngusRobertson/s...973597697?s=20


Question: What did this visit achieve?

Another 2 or 3% on the Yes vote hopefully.

I'm sure he felt it was worth it so spend yet another day playing dress up. If there's one thing Mr Bent loves, it's playing dress up.

So when you go, can someone please remember all the blether about "North of Hadrian's Wall..." and take us with you?

Seriously, you've even had better Tory leaders than we managed in Ingerland.

Mind, in reality for the likes of us, as someone I know in Berwick said to me a while back, Holyrood would probably ignore us as much as Westminster does. See also a conversation I had with someone in NW Sutherland shortly before the 2014 vote, in which he opined that being governed from the Central Belt would be no different from being governed from Westminster, as none of them know where Sutherland is...

I know this is a fairly common opinion in Scotland but not one I share. I've seen how Scotland is treated in the annals of UK Government at close quarters. Openly hostile at times.

Even being an afterthought would be an improvement to be honest.

Yeah, that's a view which many, including me, in some regions of England would share, especially the North East or Cornwall, IME.

Honestly when it comes to the Torys I don't think it's geographical, if you're not a millionaire in London they despise you just as much as if you're not a millionaire in Inverness.

Cornwall is starting to see a lot more investment; the fact that it became a very popular second home location for many of the London based “good and great” is entirely coincidental.

Up to a point:

https://twitter.com/Helenreflects/st...ffiliation-fun

See Walsall North

:) :thumbsup:

^ Irrational racism against the English?

Nope, because Miliband's an idiot who ruled out a referendum on membership of the EU.
Being anti democratic is not a good position.

Having concerns about immigration is not necessarily racist, especially if it's about skills and numbers, rather than nationality / colour.

But hating the English and claiming they're always voting Tory, that is racism. It's a hatred of someone based on their nationality.

Take a good long hard look at yourself in the mirror.

May I remind you that from 1997-2005 the elections were dominated by Labour?
And before that, in 1974 Labour won, 1966 and 64, Labour won, 1945 and 1950, Labour won.
That wouldn't have been possible without English Labour constituencies.

Stop making assumptions about people.

I am English, I agree that idiots always vote Tory even when they know it is against their own interest to do so.

Well, the answer is to provide an alternative!!!!

Once there's an alternative, then people WON'T!

And remember when the SNP were the Tartan Tories? That wasn't too long ago.