Tuesday 14th January 2020
Posted: Tue 14 Jan, 2020 7:01 am
Morning all.
He suggested that the government was working on a plan to allow people to contribute to the cost of allowing Ben Ben to chime on 31 January to mark Brexit. The Commons authorities have ruled this out because interfering with the Big Ben restoration project to allow the bell to be rung at the end of the month would cost £500,000. Asked about this, Johnson said:
The bongs cost £500,000 but we’re working up a plan so people can bung a bob for a Big Ben bong because there are some people who want to.
Because Big Ben is being refurbished, they seem to have taken the clapper away, so we need to restore the clapper in order to bong Big Ben on Brexit night.
And that is expensive, so we’re looking at whether the public can fund it.
It was not clear whether or not Johnson was joking.
Sounds like our PM, except for the last bit unfortunately.HindleA wrote:Reached overwaffling status and self-destructed
I think it was yesterday that the Liveblog was persuaded from btl to actually change a word and use “untruthful” to describe the Liar’s lies” … the main takeaway is that Johnson has just as prone to using bluster, evasion and hyperbole when faced with difficult questions as he was before he went on his New Year holiday. Still, he was not untruthful in the way that he was yesterday, …”
” When the presenter, Dan Walker, turned to Brexit, saying it was one of Johnson’s favourite subjects, Johnson replied:
” It is one of my least favourite subjects, because we need to move on."
This is not the first time that Johnson has made this point, but it does reinforce suggestions that the man who led the Vote Leave campaign in 2016 is not convinced that the whole project has been an undiluted triumph.”
Raises questions of what exactly is the point of devolution if not to try to fix local problems that national policies are failing to address.HindleA wrote:https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... ssion=true
Government still working out how to rig them most effectively?gilsey wrote:Stormont's been back a couple of days and they're announcing committees.
Where are ours?
There's thisWillow904 wrote:
The only logical interpretation of the government's stance on this is that they are actively pursuing a national policy in the interests of rogue landlords and are actively against better housing conditions and rights for tenants.
Ie. poor housing is a deliberate choice, not policy failure.
Infers that the place has to be literally uninhabitable before you can get help in law.Step 3: Is the problem so bad that it makes your house or flat not fit to live in?
Yes, who to pick that will say "I don't think we need to worry about a Russia Report" with sufficient conviction.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Government still working out how to rig them most effectively?gilsey wrote:Stormont's been back a couple of days and they're announcing committees.
Where are ours?
So what will they set up when they actually do have a majority? Chairs and majorities on every committee, such as they are?Under rules introduced in 1995, the governing party may only be guaranteed a majority on committees as long as it has a parliamentary majority. But under the proposals tabled by Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom, “where a committee has an odd number of members, the Government shall have a majority”.
TWO-NATION TORYISM !gilsey wrote:There's thisWillow904 wrote:
The only logical interpretation of the government's stance on this is that they are actively pursuing a national policy in the interests of rogue landlords and are actively against better housing conditions and rights for tenants.
Ie. poor housing is a deliberate choice, not policy failure.
Guide for tenants: Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018
But if you read on
Infers that the place has to be literally uninhabitable before you can get help in law.Step 3: Is the problem so bad that it makes your house or flat not fit to live in?
That's a terrible idea. Put forward to sound like an "I'm one of the people, me" crowd-pleaser.Jess Phillips calls for citizens’ assembly to tackle climate crisis (Guardian)
I think Westminster's action towards Liverpool is intentionally vindictive.Willow904 wrote:Raises questions of what exactly is the point of devolution if not to try to fix local problems that national policies are failing to address.HindleA wrote:https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... ssion=true
The only logical interpretation of the government's stance on this is that they are actively pursuing a national policy in the interests of rogue landlords and are actively against better housing conditions and rights for tenants.
Ie. poor housing is a deliberate choice, not policy failure.