So let's be clear. The Met is asking that a report into Downing Street parties should not refer to Downing Street parties because the Met thinks it might have some issues to investigate about them now, even though until this moment it's denied that. This feels like corruption.
I stress the ‘feels like’. In the context of past Met refusal to investigate which meant there was no option but set up a civil service inquiry to now suggest that the inquiry in question should not be published in full because the Met now realise there is evidence feels wrong.
By ‘feels wrong’ I mean that it looks like the Met are obstructing the process of justice we were promised in the face of their persistent and adamant refusal that they would not act. In other words, their intervention now feels like an obstruction of justice in itself.
And in that case it feels like corruption by them of a process that was only necessitated by their own refusal to investigate crime. However looked at, that appears to undermine the Met’s credibility and respect for the law, corrupting law and order in the UK as a result.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We witnessed an attempted coup this week. A prime minister who has very obviously broken the law on many occasions and who holds the people of this country in contempt sought to stay in power aided and abetted by his party and the police. A thread….
The charge sheet against Johnson is enormous. He broke the law on Covid parties, many times. He permitted the corrupt PPE fast lane to enrich his supporters. He has taken or failed to take action resulting in tens of thousands of excess Covid deaths.
As PM he has lied to parliament, successively. He secured illicit funding for the decoration of his flat and tried to gain personally from doing so. He has threatened to break international law and denies responsibility for the Brexit deal he negotiated.
It’s good to say that everyone is equal. They are. But when it comes to government policy that’s not enough. That policy has to be biased towards those who have least because those with the most are already more than equal. A thread....
We live in a country that is very biased to those already ahead. For example, we spend almost £60 billion a year subsidising pensions and the savings of those who are already wealthy, just to boost the value of the stock market and bankers.
On top of that we don’t charge VAT on private school fees, private healthcare and second homes. We also massively under tax income derived from wealth, companies, capital gains, and expensive homes when it comes to council tax.
In an interview with the Financial Times Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves MP has pledged that a government led by Sir Keir Starmer would be proudly “pro-business”. But what does that actually mean? A thread....
A party on the left saying that it wants to be “pro-business” always raises suspicions. The obvious suggestion implicit in the claim is that at its core the party in question is not pro-business, or has not been, or is at the very least seeking to change perception.
Reeves claim is as far as I can see admission of all those things. The reporting I have seen suggests that Reeves is contrasting her position with that of the Corbyn team. The suggestion is that they were not pro-business and that she will provide a contrast.
Let’s assume Johnson is going. We all know that he is. What then? That’s the real question. And as it stands the answers are not looking good. A thread…..
The fact is that Johnson has to go not because he has failed but because the Tory party chose him knowing that he would fail. That was not just because of his personal failings. It was also about the policies he was promoting.
The Tories chose Johnson to deliver Brexit. It was always going to be a disaster.
We know that Boris Johnson’s days in Number 10 are numbered now. We can’t be sure how many there still are. That his tenure will end well before the time of the next election is, however, seemingly certain. But my question is, so what? What then for the Tories, and us. A thread…
The Conservative Party is often described as the most successful party in democratic politics in the world. And it is true, it has dominated UK politics for longer than anyone now alive, and long before that.
But, what if Johnson goes? What happens then to a Party whose main reason for being has been to win power in the interests of a select part of society? Can it still do that?
I spotted a discussion on here this morning that debated whether Jesus was a socialist. This is from the Magnificat - the song that Mary supposedly sung in anticipation of his birth:
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour ….
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
You decide. But if you can interpret the Gospels message the way many on the right do after reading that I question your powers of comprehension.