Coronavirus (OLD)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, really....

I was talking about the specific point I highlighted about the need for having them beforehand, as an outcome of Cygnus - there was no mention of that. Your response point was about trying to get some stock, not about have a "just in case" reserve stock.

Also, they didn't make any response to the point about BJ having a 12 day "working holiday" mid-February, about a month after he had had a two week holiday in the Caribbean...

Good analysis. It's often what they don't say is more important than what they do say.
Can't help thinking that Margaret Thatcher would have taken her responsibilities to her country somewhat higher.

[nomadking]

The individual departments and Ministers are the ones that make a lot of decisions. Same with any sort of organisation. As with anything else if the PM needed to be involved and make a big decision immediately, then there would be no problem getting contact with them. Reports would have been made after any meeting, so those would have been available to read.

[figgyburn]

[QUOTE=Hugh;36032095]The £10k is for equipment for their staff to work from home[COLOR="Silver"]

Forgive me,but what equipment would be needed and cost £10 grand for them to work from home?.
Surely all these people will already have a laptop/desktop/tablet/phone?.Just asking.

[tweetiepooh]

Guess that if follow H&S rules properly ensuring proper chair, desk etc. For some may need secure lines or specially secured laptops. If staff and normally in an office you need to route phones and other communications too.

And is that 10k per MP who may have multiple staffers or per MP's staffer.

[nomadking]

[QUOTE=figgyburn;36032113]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The £10k is for equipment for their staff to work from home[COLOR="Silver"]

Forgive me,but what equipment would be needed and cost £10 grand for them to work from home?.
Surely all these people will already have a laptop/desktop/tablet/phone?.Just asking.

They're not given £10,000 and told they can spend it how they like. If there are no additional requirements, then there will be no additional expenses claimed. If there are additional requirements, then the maximum for their expense has been increased to cope with that eventuality. It might well be that any additional requirements are still within the previous limit. It's a case of it's there if they need it.

Getting on to the government intranet from home is no mean feat. There is a list of hardware and software requirements. Back when I last had to do it you weren't even allowed to use home wifi - wired ethernet back to your approved router or nothing. Once you are working from home you incur additional costs to all your utilities bills. You may even have to adjust your home insurance, if you're being an absolute stickler for detail (as someone in an MP's position surely does). Then you can add to that, providing all of the same for the one or two administrative staff who help you keep on top of your case load, who are now also working from home and incurring all those costs.

The cost of running an office has always been a claimable expense for an MP, on top of their salary. I wouldn't like to try to quantify the cost of running multiple home offices, but there absolutely is one, and making money available for MPs to run home offices is not an unreasonable proposition.

[tweetiepooh]

In response to those commenting on handling donations to those raising money for NHS/COVID-19.

We have donated to charities using give.net. They have a 3% fee detailed here. They do not charge the recipients and whatever anyone says there are costs involved in handling money. Yes 3% of £10 is small and £20,000,000 is bigger but so are the costs. Their illustration would show that their fee for a £10 gift with gift-aid gives the charity £12.12 instead of £12.50. There is no card fee.
From the linked page
"*Just like the churches, charities and full-time Christian workers we support, we’re a not-for-profit too. It means you can use give.net in full confidence that we’re not profiting from your generosity. In the event that we do make a surplus, it is reinvested back into supporting our charitable activities."
Other donation handling mechanisms may differ.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, really....

I was talking about the specific point I highlighted about the need for having them beforehand, as an outcome of Cygnus - there was no mention of that. Your response point was about trying to get some stock, not about have a "just in case" reserve stock.

Also, they didn't make any response to the point about BJ having a 12 day "working holiday" mid-February, about a month after he had had a two week holiday in the Caribbean...

No, but the governments rebuttal is the best response, against a failing newspaper business, no wonder when it writes hatchet job pieces laid with utter lies and inaccuracies.

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------

Maajid Nawaz hits nail on head regarding Sunday times hit piece yesterday:

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...ts-boris-john/

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Yes, really....

I was talking about the specific point I highlighted about the need for having them beforehand, as an outcome of Cygnus - there was no mention of that. Your response point was about trying to get some stock, not about have a "just in case" reserve stock.

Also, they didn't make any response to the point about BJ having a 12 day "working holiday" mid-February, about a month after he had had a two week holiday in the Caribbean...

The response to the stockpile as an outcome of Cygnus had already been given earlier in fact Gove mentioned it in response to Soapey Ridge that morning.

[heero_yuy]

By contrast Trevor Cavanagh's piece in the Sun today makes much better analysis.

As French President Emanuel Macron admitted last week, the entire Western world was caught on the hop. His government has “made mistakes” — and so has ours.

But presidents and prime ministers have a lot on their plates. When it comes to health alarms, they rely on experts.

It would take a very brave prime minister indeed to ignore the people appointed to safeguard the nation’s health when lives are at risk.

[Sephiroth]

[QUOTE=figgyburn;36032113]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The £10k is for equipment for their staff to work from home[COLOR="Silver"]

Forgive me,but what equipment would be needed and cost £10 grand for them to work from home?.
Surely all these people will already have a laptop/desktop/tablet/phone?.Just asking.

Snouts in trough is the obvious conclusion.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

By contrast Trevor Cavanagh's piece in the Sun today makes much better analysis.

I can imagine the looks on the editorial team, at Sunday Times HQ. Sat night probably rubbing their hands thinking they have multitudes of government gotchas in their hit piece, only watching their flimsy masterpiece being ripped apart and turned to dust, in the space of 48 hours.

Originally Posted by Mick

No, but the governments rebuttal is the best response, against a failing newspaper business, no wonder when it writes hatchet job pieces laid with utter lies and inaccuracies.

---------- Post added at 10:57 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------

Maajid Nawaz hits nail on head regarding Sunday times hit piece yesterday:

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...ts-boris-john/

The Sunday Times is hardly an anti-Conservative paper although both The Times and the SundayTimes have more editorial freedom than The Sun does.

Usually it's the left who becomes paranoid about every single newspaper article critical of 'their side' being part of a larger game concocted by the evil proprietors of those newspapers. A single negative article about the Government must be because Rupert Murdoch wants Boris Johnson out? That's overstating it a bit. If it's true then why trust The Sun instead? Other than one paper is saying something you disagree with and the other isn't. Murdoch decided to use The lower-circulation Sunday Times to start the move against Johnson but uses the higher-circulation Sun newspaper to defend him?

This is the standard retort now to every negative article about Labour or the Tories. It's a smear, it's a hatchet job. There is an entirely loyal breed of voter now who only accepts the word of the Government as the truth and anyone holding them to account as lairs, people who seem to trust the state (or their political party if they're not in government) without question.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Snouts in trough is the obvious conclusion.

It's just an increase in the maximum allowance in expenses. They might need to use the extra, then again they might not.

Originally Posted by Damien

The Sunday Times is hardly an anti-Conservative paper although both The Times and the SundayTimes have more editorial freedom than The Sun does.

Usually it's the left who becomes paranoid about every single newspaper article critical of 'their side' being part of a larger game concocted by the evil proprietors of those newspapers. A single negative article about the Government must be because Rupert Murdoch wants Boris Johnson out? That's overstating it a bit. If it's true then why trust The Sun instead? Other than one paper is saying something you disagree with and the other isn't. Murdoch decided to use The lower-circulation Sunday Times to start the move against Johnson but uses the higher-circulation Sun newspaper to defend him?

This is the standard retort now to every negative article about Labour or the Tories. It's a smear, it's a hatchet job. There is an entirely loyal breed of voter now who only accepts the word of the Government as the truth and anyone holding them to account as lairs, people who seem to trust the state (or their political party if they're not in government) without question.

Damien, I’m not saying the government cannot be held to account, hell, I don’t agree with our borders being open, people not being adequately tested if they’re from hot CV zones.

But if people want to be critical, they have to be correct and fair in their criticism. That means, if they’re going to accuse the Prime Minister of not listening, when he actually was, then need to be spot on in their assertions.

That Sunday Times hit piece was an absolute disgrace, did you watch the clip of Maajid Nawaz, I linked to above?

He is absolutely spot on, I urge people to listen to what he says. Again, it highlights hindsight is a good thing, but we cannot blame any one for not having it, including the UK Government, for not having hindsight, but the Sunday Times is trying to rewrite history here and it’s is totally wrong.