Tony Blair

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

Not seen any of the numbers but the numbers are potentially meaningless.
It’s an old property and could have undergone structural work at some point.
If all these figures are solely on internal decoration and furnishings then the whole thing is a scandal but I somehow doubt it.

I suspect the IT infrastructure alone has been updated massively with high security since 1997 when the public internet use was still in its toddler years.

They get £30k a year from government for renovations and repairs.

I get that but major updates to an old building could easily exceed £30k

My little house is due for major renovations and I could easily blow way more than 30k

That was my point. If the property needs major investment, £30k ain’t cutting it.

Who said anything about major updates. This was £200k to decorate and furnish by all accounts. And this is per year!

I realise some are struggling to grasp this, but £200k really isn't that much to refurbish and refurnished a decent sized flat at that sort of level.

That budget would do a fairly high spec complete renovation - is there any indication that's what it needed?

I mean in one sense you are right - 200k is the cost to refurbish and refurnish that property at that level because that's what it did cost. The point is why does it need to be done to that level? Is wallpaper at £840 a roll a reasonable expectation ?

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

Not seen any of the numbers but the numbers are potentially meaningless.
It’s an old property and could have undergone structural work at some point.
If all these figures are solely on internal decoration and furnishings then the whole thing is a scandal but I somehow doubt it.

I suspect the IT infrastructure alone has been updated massively with high security since 1997 when the public internet use was still in its toddler years.

They get £30k a year from government for renovations and repairs.

I get that but major updates to an old building could easily exceed £30k

My little house is due for major renovations and I could easily blow way more than 30k

That was my point. If the property needs major investment, £30k ain’t cutting it.

Who said anything about major updates. This was £200k to decorate and furnish by all accounts. And this is per year!

I realise some are struggling to grasp this, but £200k really isn't that much to refurbish and refurnished a decent sized flat at that sort of level.

That budget would do a fairly high spec complete renovation - is there any indication that's what it needed?

I mean in one sense you are right - 200k is the cost to refurbish and refurnish that property at that level because that's what it did cost. The point is why does it need to be done to that level? Is wallpaper at £840 a roll a reasonable expectation ?

Who cares whether it was needed? If he wants to spend more than the standard £30k allowance, that's fine so long as he pays for it. There's no suggestion that anything above that amount was covered by public money.
The issue is that instead of funding it directly or getting a standard bank loan, he borrowed it from CCHQ, which hardly sounds like a proper use of party funds. Even if it were, who was asked to donate to cover this loan and what were they expecting in return?

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

Not seen any of the numbers but the numbers are potentially meaningless.
It’s an old property and could have undergone structural work at some point.
If all these figures are solely on internal decoration and furnishings then the whole thing is a scandal but I somehow doubt it.

I suspect the IT infrastructure alone has been updated massively with high security since 1997 when the public internet use was still in its toddler years.

They get £30k a year from government for renovations and repairs.

I get that but major updates to an old building could easily exceed £30k

My little house is due for major renovations and I could easily blow way more than 30k

That was my point. If the property needs major investment, £30k ain’t cutting it.

Who said anything about major updates. This was £200k to decorate and furnish by all accounts. And this is per year!

I realise some are struggling to grasp this, but £200k really isn't that much to refurbish and refurnished a decent sized flat at that sort of level.

That budget would do a fairly high spec complete renovation - is there any indication that's what it needed?

I mean in one sense you are right - 200k is the cost to refurbish and refurnish that property at that level because that's what it did cost. The point is why does it need to be done to that level? Is wallpaper at £840 a roll a reasonable expectation ?

Who cares whether it was needed? If he wants to spend more than the standard £30k allowance, that's fine so long as he pays for it. There's no suggestion that anything above that amount was covered by public money.
The issue is that instead of funding it directly or getting a standard bank loan, he borrowed it from CCHQ, which hardly sounds like a proper use of party funds. Even if it were, who was asked to donate to cover this loan and what were they expecting in return?

Well seemingly you cared enough to post your opinion on it.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

Not seen any of the numbers but the numbers are potentially meaningless.
It’s an old property and could have undergone structural work at some point.
If all these figures are solely on internal decoration and furnishings then the whole thing is a scandal but I somehow doubt it.

I suspect the IT infrastructure alone has been updated massively with high security since 1997 when the public internet use was still in its toddler years.

They get £30k a year from government for renovations and repairs.

I get that but major updates to an old building could easily exceed £30k

My little house is due for major renovations and I could easily blow way more than 30k

That was my point. If the property needs major investment, £30k ain’t cutting it.

Who said anything about major updates. This was £200k to decorate and furnish by all accounts. And this is per year!

I realise some are struggling to grasp this, but £200k really isn't that much to refurbish and refurnished a decent sized flat at that sort of level.

That budget would do a fairly high spec complete renovation - is there any indication that's what it needed?

I mean in one sense you are right - 200k is the cost to refurbish and refurnish that property at that level because that's what it did cost. The point is why does it need to be done to that level? Is wallpaper at £840 a roll a reasonable expectation ?

Who cares whether it was needed? If he wants to spend more than the standard £30k allowance, that's fine so long as he pays for it. There's no suggestion that anything above that amount was covered by public money.
The issue is that instead of funding it directly or getting a standard bank loan, he borrowed it from CCHQ, which hardly sounds like a proper use of party funds. Even if it were, who was asked to donate to cover this loan and what were they expecting in return?

Well seemingly you cared enough to post your opinion on it.

I care about the PM soliciting donations off the record. On balance, high end interior design is one of the better things he could spend it on. A lot of the comment seems to be from people begrudging him having nice things, which misses the point.

john80

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

So what happens to all the 'stuff' bought at our expense when the next refurb happens?
Surely things like beds should come out of the PM's own pocket.
I'm sure we'd all love to have £30k pa to maintain our own homes.

I doubt any structural repairs to the building comes out of this allowance.

As I said before this is a workplace and should be treated as such.
It is not their personal home to be decorated on a whim. Should being the key word.

I also advocated an MP's hotel instead of personal house allowances. You know like how businesses operate.

Do many businesses give you job anywhere up to 700 miles away from your principle residence and your family for 5 years then insist you stay at the premier inn for the duration. Where do the wife and kids stay when they visit. Have a word with yourself. Any business I worked for would have sorted out some decent accommodation for you.

shirley_basso

Principal*

rick_chasey

Look there is also an argument I am broadly sympathetic with which is the UK PM is paid less than more or less any other leader of a rich nation and if it is indeed the case that anyone, even f*cking Johnson "can't afford" to be in the role than the pay needs to be upped.

You really don't want to be in a position where certain people in society are priced out of PM on the basis of money.

I don't really have an issue with Johnson spanking £200k on doing up the PM's flat, nor that they have a chunky allowance to do so.

It's just the issue of how he gets the money, and what that means for his leadership.

If he is happy to take informal loans off mates against the rules, than is he wise to the obvious risk of corruption, either in the form of 'returning favours' or even blackmail?

is he so preoccupied with trying to fund a certain lifestyle (ie. divorced multiple times with multiple children and a fiancee with expensive taste), that he is willing to break rules and risk a genuine scandal?

Or is he so unfamiliar with the rules and why they would even be in place that he needs a strong willed advisor to tell him to not be stupid? (I think this is more likely). The reports suggest a new advisor turned up, realised the mistake and worked hard to sort it out before it got even worse (hence "covering the cost").

In which case, you need to ask is this kind of behaviour and a blind-spot to him? That would help explain the culture in which chronic corruption and favours for mates occurred during a pandemic. Does he not see the risks associated with a PM borrowing money under the table from supporters?

pblakeney

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

So what happens to all the 'stuff' bought at our expense when the next refurb happens?
Surely things like beds should come out of the PM's own pocket.
I'm sure we'd all love to have £30k pa to maintain our own homes.

I doubt any structural repairs to the building comes out of this allowance.

As I said before this is a workplace and should be treated as such.
It is not their personal home to be decorated on a whim. Should being the key word.

I also advocated an MP's hotel instead of personal house allowances. You know like how businesses operate.

Do many businesses give you job anywhere up to 700 miles away from your principle residence and your family for 5 years then insist you stay at the premier inn for the duration. Where do the wife and kids stay when they visit. Have a word with yourself. Any business I worked for would have sorted out some decent accommodation for you.

Decent accommodation does not equate to a privately owned flat/house in Westminster. I just don't think the public purse should be funding personal purchases. I worked away from home for 14 years so have some experience. MPs should be faced with the same benefit in kind taxes and restrictions as everyone else.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

Not seen any of the numbers but the numbers are potentially meaningless.
It’s an old property and could have undergone structural work at some point.
If all these figures are solely on internal decoration and furnishings then the whole thing is a scandal but I somehow doubt it.

I suspect the IT infrastructure alone has been updated massively with high security since 1997 when the public internet use was still in its toddler years.

They get £30k a year from government for renovations and repairs.

I get that but major updates to an old building could easily exceed £30k

My little house is due for major renovations and I could easily blow way more than 30k

That was my point. If the property needs major investment, £30k ain’t cutting it.

Who said anything about major updates. This was £200k to decorate and furnish by all accounts. And this is per year!

I realise some are struggling to grasp this, but £200k really isn't that much to refurbish and refurnished a decent sized flat at that sort of level.

That budget would do a fairly high spec complete renovation - is there any indication that's what it needed?

I mean in one sense you are right - 200k is the cost to refurbish and refurnish that property at that level because that's what it did cost. The point is why does it need to be done to that level? Is wallpaper at £840 a roll a reasonable expectation ?

Who cares whether it was needed? If he wants to spend more than the standard £30k allowance, that's fine so long as he pays for it. There's no suggestion that anything above that amount was covered by public money.
The issue is that instead of funding it directly or getting a standard bank loan, he borrowed it from CCHQ, which hardly sounds like a proper use of party funds. Even if it were, who was asked to donate to cover this loan and what were they expecting in return?

Well seemingly you cared enough to post your opinion on it.

I care about the PM soliciting donations off the record. On balance, high end interior design is one of the better things he could spend it on. A lot of the comment seems to be from people begrudging him having nice things, which misses the point.

Yes the issue of importance is how it was funded.

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance and that you don't need £200k to refurb a property to a high standard unless it's semi derelict.

I think the two issues are linked in saying something about his character, his sense of entitlement.

kingstongraham

Rich people spend a lot of money. If he isn't rich, he shouldn't spend a lot of money. It's a fairly basic Conservative principle, isn't it? If it was anyone else, the principle would also apply that he shouldn't have had all those kids if he couldn't afford to keep them.

shirley_basso

Let's say it's a 5 year tenure - does it make more sense to spend the £150k on day 1 rather than £30k p.a?

ddraver

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

surrey_commuter

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

So what happens to all the 'stuff' bought at our expense when the next refurb happens?
Surely things like beds should come out of the PM's own pocket.
I'm sure we'd all love to have £30k pa to maintain our own homes.

I doubt any structural repairs to the building comes out of this allowance.

As I said before this is a workplace and should be treated as such.
It is not their personal home to be decorated on a whim. Should being the key word.

I also advocated an MP's hotel instead of personal house allowances. You know like how businesses operate.

Do many businesses give you job anywhere up to 700 miles away from your principle residence and your family for 5 years then insist you stay at the premier inn for the duration. Where do the wife and kids stay when they visit. Have a word with yourself. Any business I worked for would have sorted out some decent accommodation for you.

A few points.
They know the location when they apply
They don’t live there permanently so no need for family visits as it is a Mon-Thurs and their weeks worked make teachers look hard done by.

Grayling lives 25 miles from London yet bought a second home in Wimbledon more or less halfway, that he claimed the mortgage on

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

So what happens to all the 'stuff' bought at our expense when the next refurb happens?
Surely things like beds should come out of the PM's own pocket.
I'm sure we'd all love to have £30k pa to maintain our own homes.

I doubt any structural repairs to the building comes out of this allowance.

As I said before this is a workplace and should be treated as such.
It is not their personal home to be decorated on a whim. Should being the key word.

I also advocated an MP's hotel instead of personal house allowances. You know like how businesses operate.

Do many businesses give you job anywhere up to 700 miles away from your principle residence and your family for 5 years then insist you stay at the premier inn for the duration. Where do the wife and kids stay when they visit. Have a word with yourself. Any business I worked for would have sorted out some decent accommodation for you.

A few points.
They know the location when they apply
They don’t live there permanently so no need for family visits as it is a Mon-Thurs and their weeks worked make teachers look hard done by.

Grayling lives 25 miles from London yet bought a second home in Wimbledon more or less halfway, that he claimed the mortgage on

To be fair, he probably thought he could walk to work from there.

elbowloh

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

So what happens to all the 'stuff' bought at our expense when the next refurb happens?
Surely things like beds should come out of the PM's own pocket.
I'm sure we'd all love to have £30k pa to maintain our own homes.

I doubt any structural repairs to the building comes out of this allowance.

As I said before this is a workplace and should be treated as such.
It is not their personal home to be decorated on a whim. Should being the key word.

I also advocated an MP's hotel instead of personal house allowances. You know like how businesses operate.

Do many businesses give you job anywhere up to 700 miles away from your principle residence and your family for 5 years then insist you stay at the premier inn for the duration. Where do the wife and kids stay when they visit. Have a word with yourself. Any business I worked for would have sorted out some decent accommodation for you.

A few points.
They know the location when they apply
They don’t live there permanently so no need for family visits as it is a Mon-Thurs and their weeks worked make teachers look hard done by.

Grayling lives 25 miles from London yet bought a second home in Wimbledon more or less halfway, that he claimed the mortgage on

To be fair, he probably thought he could walk to work from there.

He was Transport secretary after all.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

Not seen any of the numbers but the numbers are potentially meaningless.
It’s an old property and could have undergone structural work at some point.
If all these figures are solely on internal decoration and furnishings then the whole thing is a scandal but I somehow doubt it.

I suspect the IT infrastructure alone has been updated massively with high security since 1997 when the public internet use was still in its toddler years.

They get £30k a year from government for renovations and repairs.

I get that but major updates to an old building could easily exceed £30k

My little house is due for major renovations and I could easily blow way more than 30k

That was my point. If the property needs major investment, £30k ain’t cutting it.

Who said anything about major updates. This was £200k to decorate and furnish by all accounts. And this is per year!

I realise some are struggling to grasp this, but £200k really isn't that much to refurbish and refurnished a decent sized flat at that sort of level.

That budget would do a fairly high spec complete renovation - is there any indication that's what it needed?

I mean in one sense you are right - 200k is the cost to refurbish and refurnish that property at that level because that's what it did cost. The point is why does it need to be done to that level? Is wallpaper at £840 a roll a reasonable expectation ?

Who cares whether it was needed? If he wants to spend more than the standard £30k allowance, that's fine so long as he pays for it. There's no suggestion that anything above that amount was covered by public money.
The issue is that instead of funding it directly or getting a standard bank loan, he borrowed it from CCHQ, which hardly sounds like a proper use of party funds. Even if it were, who was asked to donate to cover this loan and what were they expecting in return?

Well seemingly you cared enough to post your opinion on it.

I care about the PM soliciting donations off the record. On balance, high end interior design is one of the better things he could spend it on. A lot of the comment seems to be from people begrudging him having nice things, which misses the point.

Yes the issue of importance is how it was funded.

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance and that you don't need £200k to refurb a property to a high standard unless it's semi derelict.

I think the two issues are linked in saying something about his character, his sense of entitlement.

If it's not public money, then why is it an issue what a he spends the £200k on? As vices go, expensive wallpaper is pretty tame.

kingstongraham

Haha
2012
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-spent-30000-of-taxpayers-674931
2016
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3588675/George-Osborne-s-40-000-bill-grace-favour-Downing-Street-flat-imposed-austerity-measures.html

I was wondering if Osborne got a deal on the wallpaper. He must have done at those knock down prices.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

elbowloh said:

morstar said:

Not seen any of the numbers but the numbers are potentially meaningless.
It’s an old property and could have undergone structural work at some point.
If all these figures are solely on internal decoration and furnishings then the whole thing is a scandal but I somehow doubt it.

I suspect the IT infrastructure alone has been updated massively with high security since 1997 when the public internet use was still in its toddler years.

They get £30k a year from government for renovations and repairs.

I get that but major updates to an old building could easily exceed £30k

My little house is due for major renovations and I could easily blow way more than 30k

That was my point. If the property needs major investment, £30k ain’t cutting it.

Who said anything about major updates. This was £200k to decorate and furnish by all accounts. And this is per year!

I realise some are struggling to grasp this, but £200k really isn't that much to refurbish and refurnished a decent sized flat at that sort of level.

That budget would do a fairly high spec complete renovation - is there any indication that's what it needed?

I mean in one sense you are right - 200k is the cost to refurbish and refurnish that property at that level because that's what it did cost. The point is why does it need to be done to that level? Is wallpaper at £840 a roll a reasonable expectation ?

Who cares whether it was needed? If he wants to spend more than the standard £30k allowance, that's fine so long as he pays for it. There's no suggestion that anything above that amount was covered by public money.
The issue is that instead of funding it directly or getting a standard bank loan, he borrowed it from CCHQ, which hardly sounds like a proper use of party funds. Even if it were, who was asked to donate to cover this loan and what were they expecting in return?

Well seemingly you cared enough to post your opinion on it.

I care about the PM soliciting donations off the record. On balance, high end interior design is one of the better things he could spend it on. A lot of the comment seems to be from people begrudging him having nice things, which misses the point.

Yes the issue of importance is how it was funded.

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance and that you don't need £200k to refurb a property to a high standard unless it's semi derelict.

I think the two issues are linked in saying something about his character, his sense of entitlement.

If it's not public money, then why is it an issue what a he spends the £200k on? As vices go, expensive wallpaper is pretty tame.

If your neighbour asked you to buy him a new shed would you not ask what you were going to get in return?

rjsterry

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

In what other role does the public get to decide how you spend your own money? Some would say spending £3k on one bicycle is insane. Some would even suggest that paying thousands of pounds a year to slide down a snowy mountain is insane.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

In what other role does the public get to decide how you spend your own money? Some would say spending £3k on one bicycle is insane. Some would even suggest that paying thousands of pounds a year to slide down a snowy mountain is insane.

Nail on head.
It wasn't his own money.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

In what other role does the public get to decide how you spend your own money? Some would say spending £3k on one bicycle is insane. Some would even suggest that paying thousands of pounds a year to slide down a snowy mountain is insane.

To extend the analogy let's say you paid for the bike and ski holiday on your company Amex hoping that nobody would notice. Now accts want a word with you about the latest statement, would you tell them that it is none of their business or maybe indignantly tell them you can not be expected to ride a BSO.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

In what other role does the public get to decide how you spend your own money? Some would say spending £3k on one bicycle is insane. Some would even suggest that paying thousands of pounds a year to slide down a snowy mountain is insane.

Nail on head.
It wasn't his own money.

It wasn't public money. He did actually get that bit right. If some Conservative party donors are daft enough to put up money to cover Johnson's fiancé's interior design tastes, more the fool them. The only issue is that the payment, which seems to have laterly become a loan, was not declared.

kingstongraham

If one of my company's suppliers gave me £50k to do up my house, I think questions would rightly be asked.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

In what other role does the public get to decide how you spend your own money? Some would say spending £3k on one bicycle is insane. Some would even suggest that paying thousands of pounds a year to slide down a snowy mountain is insane.

To extend the analogy let's say you paid for the bike and ski holiday on your company Amex hoping that nobody would notice. Now accts want a word with you about the latest statement, would you tell them that it is none of their business or maybe indignantly tell them you can not be expected to ride a BSO.

Oh he's undoubtedly made the situation worse by trying to dismiss it.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

In what other role does the public get to decide how you spend your own money? Some would say spending £3k on one bicycle is insane. Some would even suggest that paying thousands of pounds a year to slide down a snowy mountain is insane.

Nail on head.
It wasn't his own money.

It wasn't public money. He did actually get that bit right. If some Conservative party donors are daft enough to put up money to cover Johnson's fiancé's interior design tastes, more the fool them. The only issue is that the payment, which seems to have laterly become a loan, was not declared.

That is the issue, and the point. Dodgy, a cover up attempt, and the unknown consequences. Maybe they weren't daft.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

In what other role does the public get to decide how you spend your own money? Some would say spending £3k on one bicycle is insane. Some would even suggest that paying thousands of pounds a year to slide down a snowy mountain is insane.

Nail on head.
It wasn't his own money.

It wasn't public money. He did actually get that bit right. If some Conservative party donors are daft enough to put up money to cover Johnson's fiancé's interior design tastes, more the fool them. The only issue is that the payment, which seems to have laterly become a loan, was not declared.

That is the issue, and the point. Dodgy, a cover up attempt, and the unknown consequences. Maybe they weren't daft.

Are you suggesting it was a sting? 😁

tailwindhome

Did he break the ministerial code?
If so can he tough it out?

Nothing else really matters.

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

DeVlaeminck said:

That doesn't preclude people also thinking £840+ per roll of wallpaper is an unnecessary extravagance

Very well put...

Frankly £84/roll is insane.

There is nothing wrong with being 'forced' to live in a 'John Lewis Monstrosity' whilst serving your country.

In what other role does the public get to decide how you spend your own money? Some would say spending £3k on one bicycle is insane. Some would even suggest that paying thousands of pounds a year to slide down a snowy mountain is insane.

Nail on head.
It wasn't his own money.

It wasn't public money. He did actually get that bit right. If some Conservative party donors are daft enough to put up money to cover Johnson's fiancé's interior design tastes, more the fool them. The only issue is that the payment, which seems to have laterly become a loan, was not declared.

That is the issue, and the point. Dodgy, a cover up attempt, and the unknown consequences. Maybe they weren't daft.

Are you suggesting it was a sting? 😁

No. I am suggesting that he was being vague about where the money came from as it wasn't straightforward. Either people will be expecting something in return, or will be miffed at getting nothing in return. Neither is good for BJ.

kingstongraham

tailwindhome said:

Did he break the ministerial code?
If so can he tough it out?

Nothing else really matters.

Who is it again who enforces the ministerial code?

This will be another example of the political superpower that is shamelessness.

Jezyboy

tailwindhome said:

Did he break the ministerial code?
If so can he tough it out?

Nothing else really matters.

If they do well at the local elections, I think he can tough it out. All things considered they are doing fantastically in the opinion polls, I'm not sure anyone waiting in the wings would manage that.

I had thought maybe more things would get leaked, but it seems the leaker has either run out of gossip or has decided to let Boris take a breather on the ropes.