Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Twitter, now.

Ben, having not exactly been very open with the press, is now in a full on ranty exchange with Richard Brooks of Private Eye, who he has called "liar in chief". It's not going very well.

Here's Ben, for example, not understanding the concept of net present value of sums to be paid in the future.

Here's Ben with more, with the rather baffling concept that when you sell something for £100, it actually means it was sold for £15m, except it isn't recorded anywhere.

I feel an Icarus coming on here.

Here's Ben earlier, saying he'd sue Andy McDonald if he repeated what he said outside Parliament. Given that McDonald raised what the unsued Private Eye said, he might as well repeat it, I reckon. Note the old "costing the area jobs" bolllocks.

And here's Julie Elliott bringing the subject up at PMQs. Sunak can't get off the subject quick enough- odd that he didn't take the opportunity to proclaim the benefits to backbench cheers, eh?

Somebody has belatedly taken Ben's phone off him.

Someone’s shitting himself after last week, it does seem they believed it was possible under Sunak.

Thread on the Teeside freeport

Lisa Nandy going in hard on this now.

As Jen Williams says, the politics of this are quite difficult. Lots of people in Teesside are very attached to the project, and probably only care as long as it gets done. The Tories actually picked up the odd councillor in the region in local elections (probably because of fading Kippers and Localists, as in Herefordshire, but clearly there's more of a support base there than in other places.

Nandy has hopefully timed her intervention well.

Well done, Simon. You made all the questions go away there!

George Peretz will be commenting in his capacity as a competition lawyer. You can get Steven Barrett in if you want, but he might be less credible. And you missed out the Information Commissioner and the National Audit Office.

From PMQs, just now. The usual Thatcher/Farage/Salmond bollocks that asking awkward questions is"talking down".

I noticed the other day that Sunak didn't seem very keen to talk about the freeport. Sunak's smarter than Dowden.

Simon Clarke (Con) says Labour should apologise for talking down the Teesside freeport project. He says it was always meant to include private sector involvement.

Dowden defends the project, and says Labour’s decision to talk it down is inexcusable.

More talking down Teesside.

They didn’t expect to be too closely scrutinised in Funtime Boris’s client state.

Ben's not having a good couple of days.

Trying to get Andy McDonald to repeat his allegations outside of privilege (there is no obligation on McDonald to do that whatsoever). Funnily enough he's not sued Private Eye. Nor the FT who have exposed that Hartlepool Council (under Tory leadership) secretly transferred a load of public buildings to Houchen's development corporation. Actually, Houchen admits that one, but it's fine because both are public bodies, or something.

There’s a R4 programme on metro mayors with profiles of Burnham and Houchen. “He’s put Teeside on the map.” a Houchen fan claims. Houchen more like a big tent pragmatist in tone and practice than a mouthy culture warrior. Along come freeports and as with everything with Brexit and Johnson’s finger prints on, it turns to shite.
Like to know more about Houchen’s claim that these land deals mean the taxpayer no longer has to fork out any money. Who then is legally responsible for rectifying large scale ecological damage from freeport projects?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001m ... are-mobile

Teesside being discussed in the Commons. Gove has put together a bespoke panel rather than letting the National Audit Office investigate.

Simon Clarke is on to the big issues though.

Simon Clarke, the former Tory business secretary, intervened to ask if Nandy was prepared to say that what happened amounted to corruption. He said Andy McDonald, the Labour MP for Middlesbrough, has used this word in the chamber, where he is protected by parliamentary privilege from being sued for libel. But he has not said that outside the chamber, Clarke said.

I'm sure Andy McDonald isn't the first politician to accuse somebody else of corruption. They don't all sue each other.

As mentioned on the Mad Nad thread, parliamentary privilege extends to committees. It doesn't end at the chamber door.

Amid all of the Tory pearl-clutching over suggestions of corruption, I'll just leave this here...

Teesworks: Government blocks release of documents showing decisions behind unusual investigation into redevelopment

Instead of instructing a National Audit Office review into Teesworks, Michael Gove has commissioned what Labour describe as "hand-picked" panel to look into a scheme that has prompted claims of "industrial-scale corruption"...

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/teeswork ... t-12898444

The article says the builders of the proposed factory may be looking at the Port of Tyne site instead. This isn't going well. Though maybe they think the scandal means they can get some free money out of Houchen.

That’s Lord Houchen to you peasants

At this rate we'll need a special prison with ermine striped overalls, and triple cooked chips.