Best Of

‘Unavailable’ Boris Johnson forced MI6 to change how it spies

The former prime minister was impossible to reach so often that intelligence agencies developed a new system for authorising the tapping of phones

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/unavailable-boris-johnson-forced-mi6-to-change-how-it-spies-zdt9tbjwl

Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.

Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement.
The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The
Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise
interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.

I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.

It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.

The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.

Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.

A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.

Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.

The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.

So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.

Two that we know about.

It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.

The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.

It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.

That's disgraceful. We can't have the cabinet knowing things.

‘Unavailable’ Boris Johnson forced MI6 to change how it spies

The former prime minister was impossible to reach so often that intelligence agencies developed a new system for authorising the tapping of phones

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/unavailable-boris-johnson-forced-mi6-to-change-how-it-spies-zdt9tbjwl

Surprised the home secretary wasn't always the first call.

Really don't know what they are talking about. Under RIPA the authorised Secretaries of State are: The Home Secretary authorises warrants for the Security Service (MI5) and for law enforcement.
The Foreign Secretary authorises warrants for the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and GCHQ. The
Secretary of State for Defence authorises warrants for the armed forces. The Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland authorises warrants relating to Northern Ireland, and Scottish Ministers authorise
interception warrants for serious crime in Scotland.

I suspect that the PM probably can authorise such warrants but they are simply not the first port of call.

It's specifically the tapping of MPs, previously only the Prime Minister could authorise that.

The resulting convention — that the security services would not intercept MPs’ phone calls or electronic communications other than in extraordinary circumstances — has survived until the present day.

Known exceptions include the installation of a bugging device in a car used to transport Gerry Adams, then a Sinn Fein MP, in 1999, and the recording of Sadiq Khan in 2006 when visiting an alleged terrorist in jail. Khan, the mayor of London, was an MP at the time and the prisoner was one of his constituents.

A decade ago, the rule was strengthened further, requiring MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain a warrant approved by the prime minister in order to make an exception.

Now the doctrine has been updated again owing to the numerous occasions when, according to a newly released report, Boris Johnson “had not been available” for consultation as prime minister.

The updated guidance means one of five approved cabinet members can approve espionage involving members of the Commons when the prime minister is unable to do so.

So, this is something we have done twice in roughly 30 years and the availability of Boris was an issue? Riiight. There are so many valid criticisms of the way that Boris ran his government I really don't know why people have to make up this kind of tosh.

Two that we know about.

It's part of a wider issue, that the rules are set up that the relevant minister will act competently, when the minister isn't up to it, the system kinda falls apart.

The issue is the Chinese and Russians have been targeting our MPs (and other elected officials) on a whole new level in recent years.

It has been reported that, during his time as foreign secretary in 2016-18, Johnson lost the confidence of spy chiefs when he “blurted out” classified information about a hostage in Syria during a cabinet meeting, and inadvertently disclosed details of the investigation into the 2013 murder of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed by Islamist terrorists in Woolwich, east London.

A cabinet meeting? He "blurted out" something to a cabinet meeting? That would be the highest civil authority in the governance of this country? This is just so ridiculous I don't know where to start.

Allegedly the aftermath of a Russian attack on the Kyiv Dam this morning.

https://x.com/nafovoyager/status/2004909075637977249

Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.

Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.

There's something missing there.

I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.

I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.

We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.

I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.

I think that's a very linear view of the politics.

You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.

If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.

Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.

Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.

So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.

My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.

A more realistic possibility is using them agaisnt Ukraine. He could manufacture a justification based on blaming an atrocity on them and try to end the war with a nuclear strike.

Yes, I was including that possibility. You can neither assume it nor rule it out. A probability is required, plus the range of expected outcomes if it were to happen (with their probabilities). I'd hope that people more qualified than me (or even the most war savvy of PBers) are on the case with this.

All the indications are that the Chinese have told Putin they have Views on the use of nuclear weapons against NATO allied states. And since Putin can't beat Ukraine backed by the EU he is no state to take on China too.

Not surprising. The last thing China wants with its ambitions for Taiwan are to have people get the idea it's OK to use nukes in a battlefield scenario. Or, given the delicate state of its economy, to damage its customers.

Putin has Merthyr Tydfil in his cross hairs. Perhaps he has been there and seen the carnage for himself?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2117023/russias-sends-threat-strike-23?utm_source=taboolamktg&utm_medium=taboolamktg_2025&utm_campaign=taboolamtkg_Oct_25&tblci=GiA5eh_L-eo18MVLZHxW15f-AyCs2WGNSflPevsIIJLAgCCanXYouZrDwLnQqp98MKnfQQ#tblciGiA5eh_L-eo18MVLZHxW15f-AyCs2WGNSflPevsIIJLAgCCanXYouZrDwLnQqp98MKnfQQ

Neville Chamberlain wanted to destroy Merthyr Tydfil as well.

So clearly Putin is a technocratic politician of the 1930s with no idea of how to wage a war.

I am remi ded of the old Mike Harding joke that Hitler didn't bomb Wath on Derne because he wanted to be able to see where he had bombed.

I don’t see Slough on the target list.

But if it is, will Starmer make The Big Decision?

Namely, if the Russians turn Slough into a post-apocalyptic hell, populated with radioactive cannibal zombies, will he force Putin to pay the CGT on the property value uplift?