Johnson is Churchill's biographer, meaning he is either completely incompetent at that (not beyond the realm of plausibility) or he's a liar...hmmm, strokes chin in contemplation.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he had that book ghost-written.

One of the many reasons I could never be an MP is that I would never debase myself in the way some of these Tory MPs are with their brown nosing.

Of all the many ironies of life, the idea that we have FPTP in order to have strong government, but then that 'strong' government only comes about because people are compelled by whips or desire to further their career (a career which, if Tory, they don't actually want because it doesn't pay enough) is one of the hardest to take. Plus, of course, with this government, there is very little strength from their massive majority.

Trussia was the portmanteau we all wanted.

I watched the whole of yesterday's debate on the initial Sue Gray Report.

I am not asking you for your comments about the various parties at 10 Downing Street during lockdown, or whether such behaviour from political leaders during times of national crisis is acceptable or appropriate. I believe your public statements on the matter have been sufficient for your constituents to understand your position.

I am instead writing about an allegation made by Mr Johnson against the leader of the opposition:

"Instead, this Leader of the Opposition, a former Director of Public Prosecutions—although he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out—chose to use this moment continually to prejudge a police inquiry" (Column 26)

There is, as you are aware, no truth in this statement. It is utterly disgusting that Mr Johnson would attempt to connect one of Britain's most horrific criminals with Sir Keir Starmer.

I trust you share my abhorrence at this slur, and that you have informed the Prime Minister that you think such behaviour has no place in our country and requested he withdraw his comment.

Yes

Are you immune from slander inside Parliament, even if the words are broadcast/reported?

Yep, but bizarrely you aren’t allowed to say someone is lying, or applaud.

It's one of the many reasons I'm in favour of extensive devolution/federalism as it provides more routes to executive office than just the Commons. I also think that boosting the role of select committees and making scrutiny as lucrative a career as office would also help, and improve the quality of legislation and governance.
.

Interesting - I have a feeling (and it's not based on much actual knowledge) that the Westminster-centric 'power base' isn't terribly good for the country as a whole, as there's a lot more to England than just London - and I say that as a London-suburber.

But, having spent time living in a federation in a crisis in a pandemic in a wacky weird world, I find full federalism as I've experienced it to be kinda weird and a touch confusing. For example, laws are a bit different from one state to the next (certainly in the field I work in); there's a lot of competition and sometimes lack of cooperation between states, some states go in a quite different direction to others (eg WA shutting its borders to the rest of Aus), and some uncertainty over which government actually does what and whether its a federal govt or a state govt issue (perhaps that's because of ignorance on my behalf) so they just end up fighting.

What are the middle grounds between the Aus and the UK models? Has any country really got a good model or are they all just 'better than some of the other things we've tried'?

"Explain the American Civil War then".

Well, they didn't wait, did they?

I'd like to see Peter Capaldi appointed as Boris' Head of Communications to shake things up a bit.

Great set up, cracking punch line

".... auction prizes he never received, ...breakfast with the prime minister, a Japanese meal with Jeremy Hunt and a “magical show” by former defence secretary Penny Mordaunt, who once worked as a magician’s assistant."

https://t.co/PwVmbNwWpz

Yes, absolutely disgusting and pretty scary.

<to camera>

See, if you were on Mumsnet you'd all be reading about the loss of Naked Attraction and what a boon for societial mores its going would be.

You get spoiled here with such discourse.

So, the reality of any sale (given C4 commission, but don't produce, a lot of stuff), is that the buyer is going to get some real estate, a bunch of second hand TV kit, and a space on the RF spectrum that less than half of what the UK did tune into now we all stream things.

So, selling it probably isn't for commercial reasons of ongoing viability, then?

I can't see anyone wanting to buy it, to be fair.