Isn’t this a can of worms?

Britain’s top prosecutor has been urged to prevent the courts being “abused” in a plot to stop Brexit after Boris Johnson was told he could face trial over his part in the Leave campaign.

The Tory leadership contender has been summonsed to appear before a judge to answer three charges of misconduct in a public office following a complaint that he “lied” about how much Britain gives to the EU.

Marcus Ball, a Remain-backing campaigner, took out a private prosecution against Mr Johnson, claiming he was wrong to say during the EU referendum campaign that Britain gives £350 million a week to Brussels.

On Wednesday a judge decided the case should go ahead,

That a case goes to trial does not mean that a verdict of guilty has been reached.

But isn’t that going to be interesting if one is? Lying by politicians is a criminal offence? Won’t that be fun.

Actually, we’ll be able to put the whole lot of them behind bars.

61 thoughts on “Isn’t this a can of worms?”

  1. Except for one tiny niggling fact. That we actually do give more than £350 million a week

  2. I cannot see a good outcome here, no matter what happens. Now we’ve got to this point.

  3. From the EU’s very own website:

    In 2017 the UK contributed €10.58 billion to the EU budget (after a rebate of €4.94 billion), and also collected €3.97 billion in customs duties on the EU’s behalf, of which it retained 20%, as an administrative fee.

    (10.58 + 4.94 + (3.97 x 0.8))/52 = 360m Euros per week = 317m pounds (current exchange rate).

    So using a gross figure he was around about right. Including the rebate may be disingenuous but being disingenuous isn’t going to get you found guilty.

    Of course that amount doesn’t include all the contingent liabilities that we’re on the hook for and thanks to EU idiocy will probably have to pay up.

    No one stopped the Remain campaign driving a bus around saying “Actually, we only send a net amount of £230m every week”. I can imagine why they didn’t want to do that mind.

  4. OT but from that website I can see why Ireland love the EU:

    In 2017 Ireland contributed €1.78 billion to the EU budget, and also collected €356 million in customs duties on the EU’s behalf, of which it retained 20% as an administrative fee.

    In 2017 Ireland received €1.82 billion in EU funding.

    Ireland has a GDP/capita of $77k (compared to UK’s $44k) and pays in sweet fuck all net. How the fuck do they get away with that?

    What a fucking scam.

  5. No one stopped the Remain campaign driving a bus around saying “Actually, we only send a net amount of £230m every week”. I can imagine why they didn’t want to do that mind.

    Exactly. There’s a single undisputed gross figure, which the BBC claimed (based on Treasury figures, so this is two fanatically pro-EU organisations talking to each other) to be £361 million a week. From that we can concoct many varying net figures, net of the rebate, net of any EU money spent in the UK (even though we have little, if any, say in what this is actually spent on), etc. If I’m asked how much I earn and I say £80k, no-one leaps on me and calls me a liar, just because that doesn’t correspond to what appears in my monthly pay slip after tax, NI and other deductions.

    The self-proclaimed political geniuses at the head of Remain fell straight into the elephant trap. Instead of concentrating on producing a positive case for their own side (I wonder why that might be?) they leapt on the bus, crying “no, that’s not right it’s only [insert chosen number here]”. And every time they did this, all the voters heard was “we send a shit-ton of money to the EU and get very little back”.

    Is anyone seriously going to claim that if the bus had read £230 million instead of £350 million, it would have changed a single vote?

  6. “My money’s still on Gove.”

    I wouldn’t. Gove has backed May too much. His support is more remain than leave. And the membership aren’t going to give the job to someone they see as remain or in with May’s WA. His only hope is that a wetter remainer also gets on the ballot.

    If it’s Gove vs Raab or Johnson on the ballot, Gove will lose. Apart from Raab being a leaver, he’s the sort of no-nonsense guy who isn’t afraid to go against the standard media messages and that will work with the membership. For me, he’s the only possible hope of dismantling a large chunk of the state. Whether he’ll deliver, I don’t know, but none of the rest will.

  7. BoM4,
    These days Conservative party leaders are appointed, not elected. I have my cynicism turned up to eleven.

  8. Guido Fawkes ( is fun on this story:

    “Marcus J. Ball is the man behind the public prosecution of Boris Johnson over the £350 million a week campaign slogan. Aside from looking like someone straight out of The Wolf of Wall Street, Ball had run multiple enterprises before striking Boris-Gold, having incorporated himself as a company (with overdue accounts – a criminal offence under the Companies Act) and had another that was compulsorily struck off. Strangely the original crowdfunding video has disappeared from his website, Guido has preserved it and kept a little smarmy highlight for your viewing pleasure…
    Ball’s original pitch was a naked attempt to overturn the referendum result, boasting of the establishment support he had received:
    “We have the research, the evidence, the legal team, the QC’s legal opinion on side, a persuasive legal argument on side, thousands of wonderful backers, as well as lots of journalists and national press, keen to cover the story.”
    Guido looks forward to a similar prosecution being brought against Remain’s £4,300 per household claim, Alistair Campbell’s dodgy dossier, George Osborne’s emergency budget, every time the Labour Party claimed there were just hours left to save the NHS, every Tory ‘Tax Bombshell’ calculation, and Corbyn’s pledge to ‘deal with’ student debt. At least the famous £350 million is backed up in Table 9.9 of the ONS Pink Book, revealing total debits from the UK to the EU amounted to 19.1bn, or slightly more than £350 million a week…”

  9. This has got soapy Jo’s fingerprints all over it. The man delights in wasting other people’s time and money. Not a great advert for the Bar

  10. Is anyone seriously going to claim that if the bus had read £230 million instead of £350 million, it would have changed a single vote?

    That was the genius of using the gross figure. Remain either say it’s a lie and tell everyone it’s ‘only’ £230m, doing Leave’s job for them, or, keep quiet and accept the £350m figure. They couldn’t win!

  11. Bloke in North Dorset,

    Would it be poor form for you to post the blog text here? I don’t know the etiquette on that. It appears to be blocked in China and I’d like to read it.

  12. “Actually, we’ll be able to put the whole lot of them behind bars”

    It’s a good idea, but not original.

    “We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don’t you?”
    “It saves time.”
    Sir Pterry, The Last Continent

  13. Remainers love to bang on about the importance of EU grants.

    But as the UK is a net contributor, all the EU is doing is giving us back some of our own money and telling us what to do with it.

    Besides some of it went to Spud, which ought to be enough to deter us from sending the EU a single penny.

  14. Remainers love to bang on about the importance of EU grants.

    I always suggest they give me £200 a month and I’ll buy them some stuff they didn’t ask for worth £100. They should be happy about getting £100 of stuff I’ve picked for them for FREE!!

  15. Roue le Jour,

    “These days Conservative party leaders are appointed, not elected. I have my cynicism turned up to eleven.”

    That would be a very bad idea, although I suppose the Conservatives might be that obstinate and stupid.

  16. As a general point it is past time counter action was taken against remainiacs. A Judge stupid enough to send such remainiac shite to trial needs to be the first to lose his job and pension.

    The pension will be an esp effective move.

  17. That a case goes to trial does not mean that a verdict of guilty has been reached

    I think this is one of them “the process is the punishment” thingies. As for a can of worms, sure. But no judge is going to entertain someone trying to prosecute the next time a PM says “Islam is a religion of peace” while the emergency services are scraping bits of pedestrian off the pavement.

    It’ll be more like internet censorship – loony lefties can say whatever they want, but Zuckerberg help you if you say “no more refugees, plz” on Faceborg.

    Ecksian solutions, natch. It’s like rioting: the Left does it because it’s fun. We have to make it not-fun for them in order to stop it.

  18. Thing that fascinates ,me is, apart from this Ball geezer coining a great deal of personal wonga out of mug donations, what’s expected to be gained by this.
    You could split the electorate into two halves.
    Remainers – Those that believe what what politicians tell them.
    Leavers – Those that don’t. They had almost the entire political, establishment & media class telling them repeatedly & at length voting Leave was tantamount to national suicide & still voted for it.
    So to Remainers – Ooh Boris told porkies. Bad man!
    And to Leavers – Politicians lie.? Quelle surprise!
    Number of Leavers likely to change their minds? <0

  19. ‘For me, he’s the only possible hope of dismantling a large chunk of the state. Whether he’ll deliver, I don’t know, but none of the rest will.’

    It’s a democracy. YOU must demand it from WHOMEVER.

    The good news is that’s where you are headed, what with Brexit, Farage, etc.

    But don’t make the mistake the U.S. did with Reagan. We thought we had won out against the Left. Our victory was temporary. CM aren’t going to go away. There is no finish line.

    “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

    The decadence of the West must end, or the West will end.

  20. BiS – it’s not intended to change any minds, it’s intended (as with much of modern progressive action, e.g. Gordon Brown closing the Catholic adoption agencies) to humiliate the Other.

  21. The Labour election manifesto stated that smoking would be banned in pubs serving food. Many people lost their livelihoods and thousands of pounds when smoking was banned in all pubs. At the time, I pondered the injustice of their not being able to sue the politicians who voted for the Act.

  22. Gove is the only turd not yet underfire. As has been said he is a far better liar than Treason May. Of course IF the Party get to vote he will be nowhere as the snake he is. But–will the members get a say? Likely end of Tory Party if they don’t. And of course how much remainiac shite have tried to join BlueLab as well?

    A fucking rabble indeed Theo.

  23. And on the other side of the bus:

    “They don’t like those coming from far away, I like those coming from far away …”

  24. It’s just a hit of fun, we’ll find out soon anyway.

    Meanwhile I note Gove got a very nice spread in the Telegraph when he announced his candidacy. To Kremlin watchers, these things are significant.

    In any event, the tories are between a rock and a hard place. They will not countenance no deal, but the option they want, leave in name only with endless transition periods etc. the EU will not give them. Nothing they do now would surprise me.

  25. Actually that’s not true. Abasing themselves before the shrine of the blessed Margaret, begging forgiveness and turning back to the path of righteousness would surprise me.

  26. What I don’t get is the charge “malfeasance in public office”. How is campaigning public office?

  27. Agreed, Pat. It must be a very oddly worded offence if a trial can even go ahead given that the defendant was arguably not in public office at the time of the bus going on tour

  28. He’s accused of “abusing the public trust”. Solely on that charge it should be laughed out of court. Boris? Trusted by the public?

  29. Dennis the Peasant

    Given that you Brits tend to embrace just about any obvious stupidity that’s presented to you, I’m surprised you don’t have a special counsel/prosecutor law of your very own.

  30. Typical accountants; adding January money and December money together as if it has the same value. (Lesson learned in South America – Chile – where they used a UIF unit that varies daily. So if you tell a guy I will buy the X and wait six months you pay more automatically)

    What is not mentioned is that we get the rebate back the following year, So we miss out on the interest. OK, not a lot now, but at a normal 5%, it is a lot.

  31. Having met raab, gove and Boris, I found raab to be the most impressive, sound and likeable. Gove and Boris fluffed up last time and we ended up with treasonous may-duro. Read raab,s book Assault on Liberty and you’ll agree.

  32. John – Raab seems like he’d be a good PM in anything like normal circumstances, but he’s not an alpha male. He’s a second in command type.

    There’s no eye of the tiger, no thrill of the fight, no risin’ up to the challenge of his rivals there.

    At this point, the only hope the Tories have of avoiding obsolescence is with a big bold personality who can lead, threaten and cajole their MP’s into doing the needful on Brexit. I dunno if BoJo can pull it off, but he’s the only one who might.

  33. It’s just trying to copy the way the Left have weaponised the legal system against Trump I the US. Ultimately it will backfire and then they will be whining about it being used against them. Any judge who is described as an ‘activist judge’ should be sacked as impartiality is part and parcel of their job.

  34. Oh, Steve. Steve. Steve. BoJo, for all his charisma will sell you out for a paper bag half-full of Mintoes. And then garner thanks for doing so.

  35. Edward – I’d rate his trustability as somewhere between loquacious Biblical reptiles and Jaffar from Aladdin, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s the only nationally popular Tory with the personality to lead while Raab just seems like a nice guy.

    The Tories don’t need a nice guy, they need Lord Flashheart to give them a chance of survival.

  36. I don’t care whether they survive, Steve. Quite to the contrary. I want Brexit. I’ve waited 27 years for this. 27 years during which I might as well have voted Labour. And the Tories cannot do this one thing.

    And I do not think BoJo will achieve it.

  37. Edward – I wouldn’t put money on him delivering Brexit (maybe a 50/50 chance?), but the only scenario where the Tories continue to be a viable party of government is the one where we leave the EU by autumn.

    And the only way I can see that possibly happening is with the blond beast in charge.

    Raab – and I would dearly love him to prove me wrong – is just too bloody normal to bully and brazen his way to victory. Because the problem isn’t so much the PM, it’s the Parliamentary Conservative Party as a whole.

  38. @Dongguan John May 30, 2019 at 9:58 am

    Try Opera browser (enable Opera VPN) and Pirate Browser (uses TOR)

    @Andrew C May 30, 2019 at 10:08 am
    @Dongguan John May 30, 2019 at 10:13 am

    EU is giving us back some of our own money and telling us what to do with it.


    EU: Here’s a regional development grant for 50% of cost of a 3 lane each way motorway from Exeter to Penzance

    UK: You what? Are you mad? Don’t want it.

    EU: Tough, it’s already in accounts as grant to UK

  39. @rapscallion May 30, 2019 at 7:06 am

    Yep. In 2016 it was £363m pw gross and we never know for sure that rebates etc will be paid back

    Judge Coleman rightly cited the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which ‘observed as long ago as 1998 that the Government does not participate in general elections or referendum campaigns’.

    In other words, although he was Mayor of London until May 2016, Boris Johnson was not campaigning on behalf of the Government but as a politician seeking public support.

    One might have hoped that a judge, even one not many rungs from the bottom of the judicial ladder, would have regarded Mr Ball’s application as politically driven, vexatious and slightly dotty. But no.

    Unfortunately, having observed this important distinction, the judge then proceeded to ignore it, and despatched Mr Johnson to the Crown Court to answer the serious charge of misconduct in public office.

  40. Bloke in North Dorset

    Dongguan John
    May 30, 2019 at 9:58 am
    Bloke in North Dorset,

    Would it be poor form for you to post the blog text here? I don’t know the etiquette on that. It appears to be blocked in China and I’d like to read it.
    I’m sure Chris won’t mind the word being spread further. Sorry I haven’t got the time, or will, to deal with all the formatting that doesn’t get copied across or copying all the hyperlinks:

    Did Boris Johnson and Vote Leave lie about the £350m per week?
    Short answer: no.

    Slightly longer answer: Vote Leave did play fast and loose with the actual definitions—hey! it’s marketing. And in a political campaign at that—but still no. The ONS “Total Debit” figures that they were using at the time were perfectly valid.

    Much longer answer follows below…

    The generally acknowledged authority on statistics in the UK is the Office for National Statistics (ONS) (the clue, you see, is in the name). Every year, they release a general digest of the UK’s trading position, etc., known as the Pink Book. It’s quite interesting if you like that sort of thing (which your humble Devil does, from time to time), but the tables of data are usually rather more illuminating—after all, even the ONS is not above a bit of spin (political or otherwise).

    Some spiv named Marcus J. Ball has decided specifically to summons Boris Johnson for “misconduct in a public office”: the spiv claims that Johnson knowingly lied about the UK paying the EU £350m per week.
    Boris Johnson has been summoned to court to face accusations of misconduct in public office over claims that he lied by saying Britain gave £350m a week to the European Union.

    The ruling follows a crowdfunded move to launch a private prosecution of the MP, who is the frontrunner in the Tory leadership contest.

    Johnson lied and engaged in criminal conduct when he repeatedly claimed during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the UK handed over the sum to Brussels, Westminster magistrates court was told last week by lawyers for a 29-year-old campaigner who has launched the prosecution bid.
    Why the spiv has cited Boris rather than the Vote Leave team (or even Dominic Cummings) who actually came up with the slogan, I shall leave to speculation (clue: it’s a publicity stunt because Boris is running for Tory leader).

    Regardless, what we want to know is this: did the Vote Leave team knowingly lie about the UK paying £350m per week to the EU? Or could we prove that they lied? Hmmm.

    Bear with me here, whilst I look up a definition of “debit”…
    debit (noun): (a record of) money taken out of a bank account
    Any normal person would, I think, define “debit” as money leaving a bank account. Because that is what the definition is, yes?

    Let us now turn to the data tables for the ONS Pink Book for 2016, and turn immediately to Table 9.9: UK official transactions with institutions of the EU.

    This table shows that “Total Debits” (to be clear: their phraseology, not mine) to the EU, in 2015, were £19,593,000,000 = £376m per week.

    Given our definition of debit, is it reasonable to assume that this money was, in fact, sent to Brussels? Is it reasonable to assume that this money was sent to the EU, and then some given back? Yes, I would say so.

    The sin of omission, of course, is the credits. The same table shows that “Total credits” were £9,240,000,000, resulting in a negative “Balance” of £10,353,000,000, i.e. that the net payment to the EU is a paltry £199.1m per week (so I, for one, feel much better).

    In any case, as per standard business accounting, that full amount—the £350m per week—is a liability that needs to be accrued for within that financial year and, even if the money does not actually go into an EU bank account, it cannot be spent by the government until the end of the financial period (when all of the accruals are reconciled).

    Why? Well, I think that this is illustrated by the Pink Book of 2018—which records wildly different figures for 2015. The “Total debits” are much lower, but so are the “Total credits”—giving a net figure that is actually larger than that recorded in the 2016 Pink Book: £10,553,000,000 (only £202.94m per week, net). The point here being that the figures were not finalised even in 2016—we know this because the 2018 balance is different—and so must be accrued for.

    A pertinent question to ask though, is why the figures are so different between the ONS Pink Book 2016 and ONS Pink Book 2018?

    Well, you might remember the ONS publishing a clarification about the UK’s contribution to the EU, with figures that were wildly different (and lower) than those contained within the Pink Book of 2016. WTF?

    As it turns out, before the clarification was published in October 2017, the ONS decided to change the way in which it accounted for the famous rebate—which is in both sets of figures as the “Fontainebleau abatement” line item. Up until 2016, the Fontainebleau abatement appears as a positive credit in the data tables; after
    the referendum the ONS’s sudden revelation in 2017, the Fontainebleau abatement appears as a negative debit.

    Although the overall balance remains (broadly) the same, the Total Debits for 2015 has now dropped: from £19.593bn (in the 2016 edition) to £14.804bn (in the 2018 edition). And, in fact, according to the ONS statement, a “similar presentational change had also been previously introduced within the Public Sector Finances published in September 2016”. The timing of which is a lovely coincidence, I think you’ll agree.

    Anyway, in conclusion, what do we think of this court case? Your humble Devil concludes as follows:

    including the rebate, from the ONS’s own figures and phrasing, the Total Debits amounted to £19,593,000,000 = £376m per week;
    a normal person would understand a debit as money leaving a bank account—in this case, leaving the UK’s bank account to land in the EU’s;
    even if this actual transaction did not happen, basic accrual accounting ensures that the full amount of money liable could not be spent by the government: as such, which actual bank account the money was residing in was not important in terms of, say, wanting to further fund the NHS;
    the clarification from the ONS that such immediate bank-to-banks transfers did not happen was not published until October 2017—around 16 months after the referendum;
    the ONS changed the way that it accounted for the rebate—but not until September 2017;
    is it thus reasonable to believe that the Total Debit of £376m per week was “sent to Brussels”?
    I guess we’ll find out, but I would say “yes”.

    In the view of your humble Devil, however, this court case is a frivolous waste of time and money—and actively dangerous in terms of our democracy.

    But—hey!—that’s Remainers all over: they don’t care what systems they fuck up, as long as they get their own way.

    P.S. In case it comes up (and it will) most payments from the EU to the UK (credits) are irrelevant, really. If someone said to you, “give me £20; I’ll give you £10 back—plus you have to skip around, from this day forth, whilst whistling the Chicken Song” you wouldn’t do it, would you?

  41. Bloke in North Dorset

    Roué le Jour
    May 30, 2019 at 9:40 am
    These days Conservative party leaders are appointed, not elected. I have my cynicism turned up to eleven.

    Chris Dillow has a good take on this. The whole piece is interesting and concludes:

    If Tory members and MPS consider only their private gain – “who most agrees with me?” – they’ll not ask who is the best match. It is only by accident then that they’ll elect the most suitable leader. And it’s a long time since this accident happened: the party’s last five leaders – Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard, Cameron and May – have all left something to be desired.

    But it was not always thus. Before 1965 Tory leaders were not elected but rather chosen by grandees. Because they were often old enough to have sloughed off ambition, such men put a higher weight upon the good of the party and less upon their private gain. They solved the collective action problem, and the Tory party was much stronger for it. The party has, however, now lost this solution. And the delightful irony is that the same blind spot that has caused it to wreck the country is now causing it to wreck itself.

    NB As all the good Twitterati say: Retweets and like != endorsement.

  42. Pingback: Abuse of Process – Longrider


    This is worth reading.
    The decision to issue a summons is not one I would have made, reading the submissions cited in her reasons. Particularly on the alleged severity of the conduct. She found that the ‘lie’, if proved, was of such enormity that it was criminal.

    45. I can take this very shortly. Conduct is required which breaches a high threshold;
    conduct which is so serious that it deserves criminal sanction, not merely civil or
    regulatory. High culpability and significant harm need to be established.
    46. It is alleged that the conduct of which the proposed defendant is accused was a huge
    lie calculated to mislead the electorate by using inaccurate and misleading statements.
    47. The statements were repeated on numerous occasions.
    48. Mr Derbyshire argues that the allegations here do not begin to approach the very high
    threshold level of the common law offence. He submits that the applicant has bolstered
    his argument by relying upon the suggestion that the likely consequences here satisfy
    the requirement.
    49. The applicant has statements from members of the public which addresses the impact
    the apparent lie had on them. Mr Power submits there will be seldom a more serious
    misconduct allegation against a Member of Parliament or Mayor than to lie repeatedly
    to the voting public on a national and international platform, in order to win your
    desired outcome.
    50. I am satisfied this element of the offence is prima facie satisfied.”

  44. @ Diogenes
    Boris was a MP at the time. So the charge is malfeasance in a public office as a MP is in oublic office. The charge is bullshit but British Justice demands that the complainer can pursue a private prosecution.
    British Justice *should* also demand that Mr Ball pays all of Boris’ defence costs when the Judge in the trial rules that there is no case to answer as telling the truth is not *yet* defined as “malfeasance”.

  45. Tell yer wot. Shall we crowd fund a private prosecution of all MPs who campaigned at the last General election to leave the EU but who have since revealed themselves as liars? Including BoJo. Double whammy for him.

    Go long* on gallows carpenters, is my view.

    *Or possibly short.

  46. Bloke in North Dorset

    Jonathan Miller,

    IANAL but I follow a lot of USA pods and blogs and that looks to me like we are getting dangerously close to the American system of judicial activism.

  47. Steve,

    He isn’t a beast. He’s just noise. He’s part of that One Nation club with people like Cameron. He’s old school, pro-establishment and flaky. Based on how he screwed up his leadership bid, I don’t think he prepares for how to do anything but is carried by events.

    Delivering Brexit is going to require someone who is ruthless and prepared. Who is philosophically robust. And I don’t think Boris is. I’m down to 1 person, and I’m not sure about him.

  48. Steve Baker–not a rubberspine like Bojo and Breathe-Smogg who love their precious shitehouse Tory Party more than Britain.

    In fact he would be wise to defect to TBP.

  49. @ BiND
    Every leader of a political party leader since the dawn of time, including Pericles and Augustus, has left something to be desired [for avoidance of doubt, Jesus was not involved in politics].
    Chris Dillow is very shallow – in 1940 Churchill was not chosen by the grandees, most of whom hated him, and in Georgian times the PM was frequently chosen by the King, (albeit if his nominee couldn’t use the benefits of office to command a majority in Parliament he had to make a second choice).

  50. ‘She found that the ‘lie’, if proved, was of such enormity that it was criminal.’

    A kangaroo court. A legal spectacle for the intent of showing the people they can trust politicians . . . uhh . . . public servants.

    Ripe for selective prosecution.

    “You like your health care? You can keep your health care.”

    “You like your doctor? You can keep your doctor.”

    “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false—the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

  51. The whole affair over the Withdrawal agreement and Mays’ attempts to drag it over the line was very enlightening.

    Practically the entire Cabinet showed themselves to be spineless wastes of space with no principles.

    The only person who has the brains, cunning and total command of detail and people necessary to get us out, sadly, is Gove.

    But he bent the knee to Theresa and her atrocious Withdrawal Agreement.
    Has shown himself to have very questionable judgement ever since he left the Education Department and seems to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the whole Climate Change scam.

    So, is it possible to get him back onside in a ‘better in the tent, pissing out kinda way’?

    Cause I can’t see any of the political pygmies presented to us being able to overcome the resistance of Gove and the civil service if their not brought onside or to heel.

    The other option is that whomsoever wins, will have to clear house ‘Game of Thrones’ stylee.
    Clear out the dead-wood, the Heseltines, the Grieves ,the backstabbers and the splitters.

    And who has the support, the iron will, the ruthless determination to do that?
    To wipe out a hefty chunk of the Party in order to save it?

    To face up to the media and call them ‘Fake News’, and mean it.
    Not Boris, nor Rees-Mogg nor Raab.

    Any ideas?

    Just been reading some quotes from Churchill.
    Whatever you may think of the man and his politics, he was a colossus compared to the politicians of today.

  52. “Go long* on gallows carpenters, is my view. *Or possibly short.”
    I believe that my hole diggers will undercut your carpenters for the work. After all, this is the internet age – gallows do not have to be built high so that people can see. We have news organisations with cameras now.

  53. @BiB
    Attlee (for whom I have very little time) was a colossus compared to the politicians of today. Mental pygmies (Lidington a possible exception) and they don’t even seem to be much cop at doing politics. One despairs.

  54. @CM
    They don’t even seem to have basic competency.
    You see it in local Government where they can’t even arrange to collect the bins without f*cking it up.
    Wither the boundary review?
    Or a review of the BBC?
    Or any of the other things they could be doing to ensure their survival.
    We need to change the system to make it easier to clear out the troughers, the liars, the incompetent and the stupid.
    With the remaining handful me may be able to get somewhere…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *