Rishi Sunak 'shocked' by allegations about Tory peer Mone

[Englishboy]

PMQs: Rishi Sunak 'shocked' by allegations about Tory peer Michelle Mone

Rishi Sunak says it is "right" that the peer has taken a leave of absence from the House of Lords.

www.bbc.co.uk

Rishi Sunak said he was "shocked" to read allegations about Baroness Mone and it was "absolutely right" that she is no longer attending the Lords.

The peer is taking a leave of absence amid claims she benefited from a firm she recommended for a Covid contract.

Asked about the allegations at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Sunak said she "no longer has the Conservative whip".

A spokesperson for the peer said: "Baroness Mone's legal team are dealing with this witch-hunt situation."

Downing Street said not having the Tory whip was an automatic consequence of her requesting a leave of absence from the House of Lords.

 

[Angela Channing]

He's a flaming liar. It's not a shock because it's been common knowledge for ages. Even I knew about this case almost 2 years ago and referred to it on the thread The Corruption, Ineptitude and Irresponsibility of The Tories Is Staggering in January 2021:

The Tory government awarded a £122 million PPE contract to PPE Medpro which is run by an associate of a Conservative peer. PPE Medpro was handed the lucrative contract to supply 25 million gowns for health workers just seven weeks after it was formed. It had won the Department of Health contract without having to go through a tender process or to put it more bluntly, the secretary of state for Health handed £122 million of tax payers money to a friend who had no experience of making PPE.

This is the very definition of government corruption.

I again raised the issue on the same thread in April this year:

Tory baroness Michelle Mone's ripped of every single British Tax payer while the Tories aided her to do so. Early on in the pandemic, she bought PPE from China for £46 million and then sold it to the NHS for £122 million. None of it was fit for purpose. The Conservative Party gave her privileged access via their VIP lane so her contract would be prioritised over others even though she didn't have any previous experience in healthcare or PPE supply.

and in August this year on the thead To Everyone Who Voted Conservative In The Past - Thank You:

Tory Baroness Michelle Mone and other Tory cronies who ripped off tax payers for billions for unusable and overpriced PPE.

If I knew about it, how the hell is it credible that Sunak was "shocked" only to find out about it now? The man is disgusting and dishonest individual.

 

[9unfold]

At what point did Rishi Sunak claim to be unaware of this allegation? Saying that he was shocked to read about it in the press is a perfectly reasonable statement, and not him denying all prior knowledge of the accusations.

 

[Angela Channing]

At what point did Rishi Sunak claim to be unaware of this allegation? Saying that he was shocked to read about it in the press is a perfectly reasonable statement, and not him denying all prior knowledge of the accusations.

So Sunak was "shocked" that a Tory crony was found out and reported on by the media rather than being shocked at what she did? That says everything you need to now about the values of that man.

 

[9unfold]

So Sunak was "shocked" that a Tory crony was found out and reported on by the media rather than being shocked at what she did? That says everything you need to now about the values of that man.

How do you know what aspects of this shocked him? Has Sunak made a statement to say that reports of alleged wrongdoing in the press is more egregious than the act itself, if proven?

This tell us nothing about his values. Suggestions that it does is little more than confirmation bias.

 

[Angela Channing]

How do you know what aspects of this shocked him? Has Sunak made a statement to say that reports of alleged wrongdoing in the press is more egregious than the act itself, if proven?

This tell us nothing about his values. Suggestions that it does is little more than confirmation bias.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said but I thought you suggest Sunak was "shocked" at the story being in the papers. If he wasn't shocked by that, then he must have been shocked by what Michelle Mone was alleged to have done even though this was widely known for many months so his shock would have been fake. I'm interested to understand which of these 2 options you think "shocked" him?

Either Sunak is a liar or he expressed more indignation at a Tory being found out than by what she had done.

 

[9unfold]

Maybe I misunderstood what you said but I thought you suggest Sunak was "shocked" at the story being in the papers. If he wasn't shocked by that, then he must have been shocked by what Michelle Mone was alleged to have done even though this was widely known for many months so his shock would have been fake. I'm interested to understand which of these 2 options you think "shocked" him?

Either Sunak is a liar or he expressed more indignation at a Tory being found out than by what she had done.

What I was suggesting that Sunak need to make a statement and expressed disapproval while keeping a healthy distance from the potential poo storm brewing.

"Shocked"... being a good easy to digest idiom. It's highly unlikely that he was actually shocked by this story that you have pointed out is public knowledge.

As PM he had to say something.

 

[Biggie]

@Angela Christmas by my understanding of your comments regarding the current Tory administration. I think that it's a fair to say that you have little time for the Tories.

Curiosity will be my downfall, but until then may I ask which of the political parties, be they mainstream or fringe, would you like to see form a government? What makes them a better prospect than the Tories? What makes you think that they will deliver on the manifesto pledges that by law don't have to be adhered to like a company's advertising claims?

Rishi Sunak has not long been in No 10, don't you think that it's too early to say he's dishonest?

 

[Angela Channing]

@Angela Christmas by my understanding of your comments regarding the current Tory administration. I think that it's a fair to say that you have little time for the Tories.

Curiosity will be my downfall, but until then may I ask which of the political parties, be they mainstream or fringe, would you like to see form a government? What makes them a better prospect than the Tories? What makes you think that they will deliver on the manifesto pledges that by law don't have to be adhered to like a company's advertising claims?

Rishi Sunak has not long been in No 10, don't you think that it's too early to say he's dishonest?

Sunak has been part of the government for many years, as has many of his cabinet, so there has been plenty of time to assess his character and that of his government. They have all lied repeatedly and allowed corruption and mismanagement on an industrial scale, ripping tax payers off by billions.

I'm going to vote Labour, even though I have reservations about Keir Stamer but I think a bad Labour government would be infinitesimally better than the past 10 years of this wretched Tory government which has left the country in a barely functioning state of chaos. However, at least the rich have gotten richer.

Coincidentally, I read the Tory 2019 manifesto again a few weeks ago and it's astonishing just how little of it they have delivered. Will Labour be better at sticking to manifesto pledges? Only time will tell but it will be almost impossible for them to do any worse.

I like that Labour want to strengthen democracy in the UK by having more power to regional governments and abolishing the undemocratic and discredited House of Lords. I like the policy to set up a publicly owned green energy company which will prioritise people and not shareholders.

I want to see Labour do more about tackling poverty, talking positively about the benefits of immigration and creating a fairer society so they have more policies to develop.

 

[Biggie]

Sunak has been part of the government for many years, as has many of his cabinet, so there has been plenty of time to assess his character and that of his government. They have all lied repeatedly and allowed corruption and mismanagement on an industrial scale, ripping tax payers off by billions.

I'm going to vote Labour, even though I have reservations about Keir Stamer but I think a bad Labour government would be infinitesimally better than the past 10 years of this wretched Tory government which has left the country in a barely functioning state of chaos. However, at least the rich have gotten richer.

Coincidentally, I read the Tory 2019 manifesto again a few weeks ago and it's astonishing just how little of it they have delivered. Will Labour be better at sticking to manifesto pledges? Only time will tell but it will be almost impossible for them to do any worse.

I like that Labour want to strengthen democracy in the UK by having more power to regional governments and abolishing the undemocratic and discredited House of Lords. I like the policy to set up a publicly owned green energy company which will prioritise people and not shareholders.

I want to see Labour do more about tackling poverty, talking positively about the benefits of immigration and creating a fairer society so they have more policies to develop.

Thanks I appreciate your response.

I'm still deciding on whether I'll vote Tory again or switch back to voting Labour. I jumped ship from Labour to Tory when Cameron won a narrow victory and had to team up with the Lib Dems.... circa 2009. Until then I have always voted Labour.

During the Labour administration I noticed that they began losing their way and mismanaged the economy. Blair was shown to be dishonest and his ministers were crooks by any other name. They left the national coffers empty. But the rich got richer under Blair and then Brown.

Stammer and his ideas about a state owned green energy company that doesn't answer to shareholders is lifted from the 70s with the likes of British Steel, British Rail, The Coal Board, British Leyland and so on. It will be subject to numerous taxpayers funded bail out because the entity doesn't have shareholders to answer to meaning that the business has to be well run and profitable.

I am swayed by your other points. The Lords should be elected, poverty and immediate need sensible and reasonable action.

A bad Labour guy is the very thing I want to avoid. The Tories are doing OK given all that challenges, would you not agree?

 

[Angela Channing]

Thanks I appreciate your response.

I'm still deciding on whether I'll vote Tory again or switch back to voting Labour. I jumped ship from Labour to Tory when Cameron won a narrow victory and had to team up with the Lib Dems.... circa 2009. Until then I have always voted Labour.

During the Labour administration I noticed that they began losing their way and mismanaged the economy. Blair was shown to be dishonest and his ministers were crooks by any other name. They left the national coffers empty. But the rich got richer under Blair and then Brown.

Stammer and his ideas about a state owned green energy company that doesn't answer to shareholders is lifted from the 70s with the likes of British Steel, British Rail, The Coal Board, British Leyland and so on. It will be subject to numerous taxpayers funded bail out because the entity doesn't have shareholders to answer to meaning that the business has to be well run and profitable.

I am swayed by your other points. The Lords should be elected, poverty and immediate need sensible and reasonable action.

A bad Labour guy is the very thing I want to avoid. The Tories are doing OK given all that challenges, would you not agree?

The point of a green energy company is to invest in cleaner forms of energy generation. Even if it does rely on taxpayers to bail it out I'd still be happy as long as it is building the infrastructure to generate clean energy and bring about significant reduction in greenhouse gas production.

I don't agree that the previous Labour government mismanaged the economy. The final crash was not something outside of the control of the government and how it responded to stabilise the economy was very good stewardship of the situation that was dropped on it. The Public Finance Initiative (PFI) to bring private money into building public infrastructure was a mistake and it would have been far better to fund those projects by rising taxes on the rich but that would have meant breaking a manifesto pledge.

That Labour government had faults but I don't think corruption was one of them. I can't think of a single think they did that I would consider corruption. Contrast that will this Tory government and how PPE contracts were fast tracked to people like Michelle Mone to rip off taxpayer, how £37 billion (yes billions not millions!) was given to Mike Hancock's friend Dido Harding to implement a test and trace system which she failed to do but squandered the money in the process, and how a peerage was given to Russian oligarch Evgeny Lebedev after he donated money to the Tories.

No, I don't think the Tories are "doing OK", in fact they are doing spectacularly badly. Inflation is soaring, pay is falling in real terms, strikes are at the worst level they have been in decades, crime is soaring, NHS waiting lists are getting longer, life expectancy is falling for the first time and poverty is increasing as is food bank use. I could go on but that list is more than enough to explain why I don't think this government is "doing OK".

 

[Biggie]

The point of a green energy company is to invest in cleaner forms of energy generation. Even if it does rely on taxpayers to bail it out I'd still be happy as long as it is building the infrastructure to generate clean energy and bring about significant reduction in greenhouse gas production.

I don't agree that the previous Labour government mismanaged the economy. The final crash was not something outside of the control of the government and how it responded to stabilise the economy was very good stewardship of the situation that was dropped on it. The Public Finance Initiative (PFI) to bring private money into building public infrastructure was a mistake and it would have been far better to fund those projects by rising taxes on the rich but that would have meant breaking a manifesto pledge.

That Labour government had faults but I don't think corruption was one of them. I can't think of a single think they did that I would consider corruption. Contrast that will this Tory government and how PPE contracts were fast tracked to people like Michelle Mone to rip off taxpayer, how £37 billion (yes billions not millions!) was given to Mike Hancock's friend Dido Harding to implement a test and trace system which she failed to do but squandered the money in the process, and how a peerage was given to Russian oligarch Evgeny Lebedev after he donated money to the Tories.

No, I don't think the Tories are "doing OK", in fact they are doing spectacularly badly. Inflation is soaring, pay is falling in real terms, strikes are at the worst level they have been in decades, crime is soaring, NHS waiting lists are getting longer, life expectancy is falling for the first time and poverty is increasing as is food bank use. I could go on but that list is more than enough to explain why I don't think this government is "doing OK".

Although I don't recall names by the last label administration courted and rewarded characters questionable in their dealings and intent. But they welcomed the financial renumeration.

The promised green energy publicly owned service provider and infrastructure is a nice goal to sell the voters but I have reservations that it's achievable and ultimately successfully delivered within a parliamentary term. Delivered as promised.

There is some industrial action in the form of strikes. The unions are calling out members to strike not the government. The cost of living is crisis to use the snappy phrase is driving by numerous factors on and off shore. The market for goods and consumables fluctuates and there are always winners and people negatively affected.

People's primary focus should be ensure that they provide for themselves and their children . Why should they expect the taxpayers to feed and dress their offspring. The challenges are plentiful and the current administration is doing OK considering how limited the public purse is.

 

[Angela Channing]

Although I don't recall names by the last label administration courted and rewarded characters questionable in their dealings and intent. But they welcomed the financial renumeration.

The promised green energy publicly owned service provider and infrastructure is a nice goal to sell the voters but I have reservations that it's achievable and ultimately successfully delivered within a parliamentary term. Delivered as promised.

There is some industrial action in the form of strikes. The unions are calling out members to strike not the government. The cost of living is crisis to use the snappy phrase is driving by numerous factors on and off shore. The market for goods and consumables fluctuates and there are always winners and people negatively affected.

People's primary focus should be ensure that they provide for themselves and their children . Why should they expect the taxpayers to feed and dress their offspring. The challenges are plentiful and the current administration is doing OK considering how limited the public purse is.

Neither Tony Blair or Gordon Brown had a resignation honours list unlike Cameron, May and The Clown. It's been reported that Truss will also have resignation honours even though I'd had headaches longer than she was Prime Minister. Whatever corruption that you think was associated with the last Labour government it pales into insignificance compared with what the Tories have done.

Setting up an energy company is well doable within one parliamentary term, my reservation is that it's not ambitious enough. I think it should be aiming to completely replace the existing energy suppliers rather than setting up an alternative green option.

People are striking because the government is only offering them a pay increase well below the rate of inflation which is an effective pay cut. This comes after 12 years of Tory austerity during which public sector workers saw their pay fall in value year on year. You said "People's primary focus should be ensure that they provide for themselves and their children" if that's true, why should they accept a cut in pay to bail out the failure of the Tory government's policies? The government are causing these strikes not the unions.

You ask "why should people expect taxpayers to feed and dress their offspring?" Because we are a society and sometimes we need support and other times we support others. I want my taxes to "feed and dress their offspring" because those children will eventually enter the workforce and pay taxes which will pay for my pension and any healthcare I might need when I'm older.

 

[Biggie]

Neither Tony Blair or Gordon Brown had a resignation honours list unlike Cameron, May and The Clown. It's been reported that Truss will also have resignation honours even though I'd had headaches longer than she was Prime Minister. Whatever corruption that you think was associated with the last Labour government it pales into insignificance compared with what the Tories have done.

Setting up an energy company is well doable within one parliamentary term, my reservation is that it's not ambitious enough. I think it should be aiming to completely replace the existing energy suppliers rather than setting up an alternative green option.

People are striking because the government is only offering them a pay increase well below the rate of inflation which is an effective pay cut. This comes after 12 years of Tory austerity during which public sector workers saw their pay fall in value year on year. You said "People's primary focus should be ensure that they provide for themselves and their children" if that's true, why should they accept a cut in pay to bail out the failure of the Tory government's policies? The government are causing these strikes not the unions.

You ask "why should people expect taxpayers to feed and dress their offspring?" Because we are a society and sometimes we need support and other times we support others. I want my taxes to "feed and dress their offspring" because those children will eventually enter the workforce and pay taxes which will pay for my pension and any healthcare I might need when I'm older.

Firstly...I salute your well structured comments above. I'm not being flippant.

If Blair and Brown didn't exercise their opportunity to compile a resignation honours list... that's a failure to conclude their time in office in a fashion that will benefit their political party going forward.

Stammer won't be able to deliver the green energy publicly owned entity in one sitting of Parliament. Won't happen. Never going to happen within the term they sit. And for replacing the current business that are concerned with supplying the UK's energy needed...that's where madness is found. People's income, pensions, mortgages, borrowing rates and investment dividends are inextricably linked to their their performance and profitably. Anyone can invest and receive dividends. Nationalisation of industries doesn't work.

The unions called their members out on strike. The government made an offer, which they rejected. The unions considered that disruption of services will help the government magic up money. No one is forced to work in the public sector and if they were serious about providing for their children they would leave and find employment within the private sector and then champagne will flow freely from them.

I know people that use food banks because they cannot be bothered to buy their own food, they just expect to sit around in a council flat with the rent being paid by the taxpayer and their bills coveted by taxpayer's money, and all the drink and drugs they do...the taxpayer funds. Breed just to help pass the time and the social services are in the delivery room to take the baby immediately into care....3 times to date but hey she don't give a f*** because the taxpayer will feed and dress another vodka drunk baby.

Multiply this across Hampshire then Multiply that across the UK. Why am paying for her to get her injuries treated by the NHS every time the love of her life, the (maybe) father of all her children in care beats her senseless in the free flat after doing the free vodka and crack.

 

[Angela Channing]

I know people that use food banks because they cannot be bothered to buy their own food, they just expect to sit around in a council flat with the rent being paid by the taxpayer and their bills coveted by taxpayer's money, and all the drink and drugs they do...the taxpayer funds. Breed just to help pass the time and the social services are in the delivery room to take the baby immediately into care....3 times to date but hey she don't give a f*** because the taxpayer will feed and dress another vodka drunk baby.

There's no point in replying to your post if that's the kind of nonsense that you believe.

 

[Biggie]

There's no point in replying to your post if that's the kind of nonsense that you believe.

You're a treasure. Seriously.