Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Johnson going could lead to CON leading the polls again – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,161
edited February 2022 in General
imageJohnson going could lead to CON leading the polls again – politicalbetting.com

The above Wikipedia table is of the opinion polls for the final 6 weeks of 1990 when Mrs Thatcher was effectively pushed out by her MPs and John Major became prime minister.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited January 2022
    Second like Scottish Labour.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,706
    Another lie from Johnson?


    Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    ·
    14m
    Number 10’s spokesman has previously promised to publish report in full.

    Odd that we’re being told there’s still a decision to be made by the PM about what’s published

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1486273439543533570
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    A superb thread.

    People (like HYUFD) would do well to pay heed. It's written by someone who excels at betting posts and frequently calling it right. Some of the recent successes, e.g. Chesham & Amersham, are already the stuff of legend.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited January 2022
    I think it's the hardest thing in the political world to realise that a once successful leader can become a terrible liability.

    Margaret Thatcher had reached the end of her electoral road and the tory party, in part thanks to the assassin Hesseltine, took action before the voters did ... and they went on to win a very surprising win at the following General Election under John Major. Almost certainly one victory too far for them: if Labour had experienced the ERM Black Wednesday how things would have been different!! I'm not sure Tony Blair would have ever become PM.

    Tony Blair exited stage left (literally leaving the HoC Chamber after saying goodbye) before the voters booted him out, which they certainly would have.

    And now the tories have an electoral liability, a man so unsuited to the office of PM that it's by now simply a question of whether the Conservative MPs have the courage and gumption to remove him before the voters do in 2024.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    Kicking off the religious theme FTP:

    A key doctrine of the Catholic Church is that what you do is the key determinant of whether you are saved or not. The focus. therefore, is on people's behaviour. It can also lead to greater acceptance, in some cases, of people's choices.

    For a lot of the Protestant Church, their roots like with Calvinism whose (probably) key element is - in a nutshell - it doesn't matter what you do on Earth because it has been predetermined that God has already saved you. In my experience, that can make them less tolerant because their view is you either get it (and so you are saved) or you don't (and therefore you are damned, so not worth bothering with).

    The CoE encompasses both wings so you are likely to get a range of views within its congregation.

    Here endeth the lesson.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    - “Looking at politics today I wonder whether the collapse of the Tory poll lead over the past few months has been driven by the growing dislike of Boris Johnson. His leader ratings have been in free-fall and has almost certainly become an electoral liability. If current events do force an exit could we see Tory poll leads once again?”

    No doubt whatsoever that BJ is dragging down his party. However, there is no guarantee that once the pressure is removed the rubber duck will bob back up to the surface ( @kinabalu - is that the analogy?)

    The longer this goes on, the harder it will be to disinfect the Tory brand. If the Con MPs now act promptly I could see consistent Con poll leads again by early 2023. If they prevaricate then I think Starmer’s got this in the bag. The defection was exquisite timing.

    Davey, Starmer and Sturgeon need the Tory circus to continue its farewell tour til the very final show.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Heathener said:

    A superb thread.

    People (like HYUFD) would do well to pay heed. It's written by someone who excels at betting posts and frequently calling it right. Some of the recent successes, e.g. Chesham & Amersham, are already the stuff of legend.

    Coincidentally @rcs1000 said a couple of days ago that IP address lookups suggest there a lot of readers of this site in the House of commons

    Hi guys! Drawing any conclusions from this?
  • “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,188
    Seeing as @HYUFD is a big fan of both testaments in the bible, how about his hero Boris paying heed to Leviticus 5:5

    "And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing"

    or 2 Samuel 10:24

    "...said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly."
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,296
    It's a bit depressing to think that the Tories could just get rid of Boris Johnson, like a snake sheds its skin, and then just poll at 45% all over again.

    I think this time might be different. This might be wishful thinking.
    My sense (older posters can correct me here) is that people wanted different policies to what Thatcher was offering.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    IshmaelZ said:

    Heathener said:

    A superb thread.

    People (like HYUFD) would do well to pay heed. It's written by someone who excels at betting posts and frequently calling it right. Some of the recent successes, e.g. Chesham & Amersham, are already the stuff of legend.

    Coincidentally @rcs1000 said a couple of days ago that IP address lookups suggest there a lot of readers of this site in the House of commons

    Hi guys! Drawing any conclusions from this?
    That their entire oeuvre has been a monumental waste of time and effort.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    edited January 2022
    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,131
    edited January 2022

    Another lie from Johnson?


    Sam Coates Sky
    @SamCoatesSky
    ·
    14m
    Number 10’s spokesman has previously promised to publish report in full.

    Odd that we’re being told there’s still a decision to be made by the PM about what’s published

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1486273439543533570

    I'm not sure that he's got that much option any longer. It looks to me as if both Gray and Cummings may just seek to embarrass him if he just doesn't effectively publish all of it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Tories did need to relearn that governments are often behind in the polls and that such is not itself a disaster, to not get into a mass panic at the first hint of unpopularity especially when starting from such a strong position.

    They are perhaps in danger of going too far though given how steep a drop there has been so quick.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    kle4 said:

    Tories did need to relearn that governments are often behind in the polls and that such is not itself a disaster, to not get into a mass panic at the first hint of unpopularity especially when starting from such a strong position.

    They are perhaps in danger of going too far though given how steep a drop there has been so quick.

    As Mike Smithson has successfully demonstrated, leader ratings are the best guide and Johnson is currently at -51: below where Corbyn was.

    You don't recover from that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    IshmaelZ said:

    Heathener said:

    A superb thread.

    People (like HYUFD) would do well to pay heed. It's written by someone who excels at betting posts and frequently calling it right. Some of the recent successes, e.g. Chesham & Amersham, are already the stuff of legend.

    Coincidentally @rcs1000 said a couple of days ago that IP address lookups suggest there a lot of readers of this site in the House of commons

    Hi guys! Drawing any conclusions from this?
    Any professional trying to learn something from below the line comments on the internet, or Twitter, is wasting their time. Fun though it is I'd hope they are sticking to headers.
  • Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067
    Heathener said:

    I think it's the hardest thing in the political world to realise that a once successful leader can become a terrible liability.

    Margaret Thatcher had reached the end of her electoral road and the tory party, in part thanks to the assassin Hesseltine, took action before the voters did ... and they went on to win a very surprising win at the following General Election under John Major. Almost certainly one victory too far for them: if Labour had experienced the ERM Black Wednesday how things would have been different!! I'm not sure Tony Blair would have ever become PM.....

    And even now a not insignificant number are still utterly convinced her removal was a mistake...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Heathener said:

    A superb thread.

    People (like HYUFD) would do well to pay heed. It's written by someone who excels at betting posts and frequently calling it right. Some of the recent successes, e.g. Chesham & Amersham, are already the stuff of legend.

    Coincidentally @rcs1000 said a couple of days ago that IP address lookups suggest there a lot of readers of this site in the House of commons

    Hi guys! Drawing any conclusions from this?
    Any professional trying to learn something from below the line comments on the internet, or Twitter, is wasting their time. Fun though it is I'd hope they are sticking to headers.
    My point was precisely that Tory mps should have a think about OGH's header
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Morning all! Seems to be some confusion about whether the Gray report is coming out today or not - a mooted 3pm grilling for Peppa now looks less likely than before.

    As for some of the late evening stuff on here, there is a reason I left the Church of England. Holier-than-thou sanctimonious hypocrites who endlessly whine on about the splinters in the eyes of everyone else whilst ignoring the Massive Plank in their own eye. The type who claim to be not only good moral people but Far Better than the likes of you and me whilst backing the very worst amoral unkind cruel things when not in church.

    I don't pretend to be a Saint, everybody sins but as Christians you can still use the Bible as a guide for your life. Obviously you are so left liberal even a relatively liberal Christian Church like the Anglican Church is not left liberal enough for you (you obviously would not even get past the door in a more conservative evangelical Baptist or Pentecostal Church or the more traditional Roman Catholic Church) so no worries you are gone
    Jesus was a left of centre social democrat. He'd be comfortable with where Keir Starmer is positioning Labour.
    Economically maybe, though the parable of the talents suggested he also backed work not welfare dependency even if he wanted to help the poor.

    He was a social conservative however.

    The Old Testament of course makes the current Tory manifesto look moderate
    He was no social conservative, quite the opposite. As demonstrated through the abandonment of Old Testament mores and the "let he who is without sin" story and much more.

    You may be a social conservative, but your Lord and Saviour as you view him was the polar opposite.
    Wrong. Jesus did not condone adultery and supported marriage. He accepted reformed sinners he did not condone sine.

    The Old Testament is also still a key part of the Christian Bible even if not the only religious book as it is for Jews and in part for Muslims
    No you're wrong.

    I've named socially liberal passages with Christ.

    Name a single, just one, Chapter and verse where Christ is socially conservative. Any at all would do.

    You can't, because he wasn't.
    No you are wrong.

    You have not named one passage where Jesus opposed marriage, advocated adultery and abortion, or even advocated homosexuality (though he was not clearly anti thr latter as Paul was).

    In any case my Christianity is based as much on much of the Old Testament as the New Testament ie the whole Bible
    You're redefining liberal and conservative to suit your agenda. I don't recall abortion or homosexuality being discussed by Christ whatsoever.

    If you look at what Christ actually says, as opposed to your imagination, then what he actually says would have made him very socially liberal for his day and age which he was a product of.

    But you don't know Christ at all which is why you're incapable of naming a single socially conservative teaching that he gave. Because he wasn't, but you're not interested in Christ, you're just interested in your own views not his.
    You're not interested in Christ no, you are an atheist libertarian
    Wrong. There's a difference between not being interested in something, and believing in it.

    I don't believe in Christianity, in no small part because Christianity doesn't believe in Christ. And as a libertarian, Christ is too left-wing anyway for my politics.

    But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in the subject. Just as someone could be interested in what Starmer has to say, without being a socialist.

    Christ was very socially liberal for his day and age. All his stories are from a liberal perspective. There's nothing conservative he had to say - and the fact that you pretend to believe in Christ while clearly wilfully not understanding him at all doesn't change that.

    Your inability to name a single socially conservative thing he had to say, while still pretending he was a social conservative, speaks volumes. You might as well say Karl Marx was economically conservative.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,826
    MrEd said:

    Kicking off the religious theme FTP:

    A key doctrine of the Catholic Church is that what you do is the key determinant of whether you are saved or not. The focus. therefore, is on people's behaviour. It can also lead to greater acceptance, in some cases, of people's choices.

    For a lot of the Protestant Church, their roots like with Calvinism whose (probably) key element is - in a nutshell - it doesn't matter what you do on Earth because it has been predetermined that God has already saved you. In my experience, that can make them less tolerant because their view is you either get it (and so you are saved) or you don't (and therefore you are damned, so not worth bothering with).

    The CoE encompasses both wings so you are likely to get a range of views within its congregation.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    OTOH, that aspect has been heavily downgraded in recent years AIUI. It's also the Presbyterian (at least) teaching that (a) it is a sin to assume that any particular person is damned; and (b) that it is nevertheless your duty to behave as a full Christian; "by their fruits shall they be known".

    Presbyterianism also regards the conflation of Church and State, as seen in the Anglican Catholic Church, with horror. "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    edited January 2022
    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    My goodness, the theists who live in your head sound dreadful.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,131
    edited January 2022
    kle4 said:

    Tories did need to relearn that governments are often behind in the polls and that such is not itself a disaster, to not get into a mass panic at the first hint of unpopularity especially when starting from such a strong position.

    They are perhaps in danger of going too far though given how steep a drop there has been so quick.

    Cameron's personal ratings were nothing like what Johnson's are now when he recovered from his 12-point national poll deficit behind Miliband, though. I'm not sure what other recent precedents there are to this extent, if any.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    rkrkrk said:

    It's a bit depressing to think that the Tories could just get rid of Boris Johnson, like a snake sheds its skin, and then just poll at 45% all over again.

    I think this time might be different. This might be wishful thinking.
    My sense (older posters can correct me here) is that people wanted different policies to what Thatcher was offering.

    Yes they did.

    She became an electoral liability towards the end. The poll tax was appalling.

    John Major was also an unknown. He was propelled through the senior offices of state and hadn't been around long enough for Thatcher to dislike him.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,747
    Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.

    On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,727
    Ontopic: Successor almost certain to get a boost, you'd think. Whether enough to actually get a lead is hard to say, depends how far behind the Tories are by then and how tarnished they all/the successor are.


    Offtopic: Have we covered this?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60132765
    (headline 'Unvaccinated man denied heart transplant by Boston hospital', although the article hints there may be other reasons too)
    I've been opposed to healthcare punishment of unvaccinated (partly because I don't think it would work anyway and partly because it's a slippery slope to denying healthcare for other risky behaviours) but I'm fine with this - limited supply then it makes sense to give them to those with the greatest chance of greatest benefit. With Covid currently rife the chances of infection will be quite high and an unvaccinated person recovering from a heart op looks quite high risk - a vaccinated person would surely have a greater chance of benefit. Not sure about 'taking him off the list' (I'd certainly give him a transplant if there were enough hearts to go round) but he'd be lower priority than those with better chance of gaining more from it.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,084
    Endillion said:

    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    My goodness, the theists who live in your head sound dreadful.
    Oh I've spent a lifetime dealing with them. As a result of which, they have long since been exorcised from my head, my body and my soul.

    Ta.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    rkrkrk said:

    It's a bit depressing to think that the Tories could just get rid of Boris Johnson, like a snake sheds its skin, and then just poll at 45% all over again.

    I think this time might be different. This might be wishful thinking.
    My sense (older posters can correct me here) is that people wanted different policies to what Thatcher was offering.

    I’m old enough to remember those years well. Viewing the world through my tartan-tinted spectacles back then (some things never change), my nation never wanted what Thatcher was offering. However, the more interesting observation is if the English nation still wanted what she was offering? And I think the answer is, broadly, yes… but with less of the increasingly wild-eyes bonkersness of Maggie herself. Major seemed perfect: a lovely, reasonable, warm-beer and cricket chap, bit boring but believed in basic Thatcherite tenets like free international trade, competition, the single European market and governments keeping their fingers out of trade and industry.

    It wasn’t the policies that put English voters off, it was her rapidly declining mental health.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,813
    rkrkrk said:

    It's a bit depressing to think that the Tories could just get rid of Boris Johnson, like a snake sheds its skin, and then just poll at 45% all over again.

    I think this time might be different. This might be wishful thinking.
    My sense (older posters can correct me here) is that people wanted different policies to what Thatcher was offering.

    I think the jury is still out on whether the polling position would be the same due to opposition to policies. The downturn has quite clearly coincided with partygate so it’s easy to surmise from that that Johnson is the main problem here.

    Of course what remains to be seen is if party gate has caused a wider “eye opening” to the perceived failings of Tory governance in general.

    Things like levelling up appear to be generally popular policies though (though they’ve gone about it a wholly cackhanded way under Johnson) so if someone could be seen to get a grip on that agenda, it might lead to a renaissance. Whether any of them have the inclination to do so is another matter.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,908

    First, but off to do other things.

    Hopefully the Church Debating Club will stay in the previous thread

    Go in peace
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,785
    Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.

    I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,486
    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    Are you claiming that a poster called Sean T ,who is identifiable to others, buys teenagers for sex?!?

    Pretty unacceptable comment.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,826
    edited January 2022

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)

    Not to decry your points, however!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    boulay said:

    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    Are you claiming that a poster called Sean T ,who is identifiable to others, buys teenagers for sex?!?

    Pretty unacceptable comment.
    Sean himself quite openly posted about his sex and drug purchases. That’s presumably why he eventually started adopting a range of pseudonyms.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    The only person who should think of MrT so much is he himself.
  • Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.

    I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.

    I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.

    I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.

    You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,727
    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    I think it's the hardest thing in the political world to realise that a once successful leader can become a terrible liability.

    Margaret Thatcher had reached the end of her electoral road and the tory party, in part thanks to the assassin Hesseltine, took action before the voters did ... and they went on to win a very surprising win at the following General Election under John Major. Almost certainly one victory too far for them: if Labour had experienced the ERM Black Wednesday how things would have been different!! I'm not sure Tony Blair would have ever become PM.....

    And even now a not insignificant number are still utterly convinced her removal was a mistake...
    Neil Kinnock likely among them?
  • Second like Scottish Labour.

    And the same as Sottish nationalists in the independence referendum
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Alex Cole-Hamilton, Patrick Harvie, Douglas Ross, Anas Sarwar, Lorna Slater and Nicola Sturgeon are unanimously in tune with their country.

    Jane Dodds, Mark Drakeford and Adam Price are in tune with their country.

    Ed Davey, Carla Denyer, Adam Ramsay and Keir Starmer are in tune with their country.

    The two cuckoos in the nest? Andrew Davies and The Oaf himself.

    YouGov - “Do you think Boris Johnson should resign from his role as Prime Minister, or should he remain in his role?”



    Should resign:

    
Scotland 83%

    London 75%

    North 73%

    Rest of South 69%
    
Midlands & Wales 65%

    

GB 71%

    (excl dk; 25 January 2022; sample size 3,559)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    edited January 2022
    People should be interested in the history of religious figures and the developments of their faiths. Its fascinating and useful. And atheists like myself should be so to avoid indulging ahistorical tropes about it.

    Edit: And you never know, maybe someone will come to the faith if they learn about it, so theists surely should encourage it too.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,706
    Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,727

    Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.

    I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.

    I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.

    I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.

    You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
    Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.

    I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
  • Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    I don't think HMQ concerns herself with the internal affairs of any party. If the Opposition table a motion of no confidence in Parliament, and if it is passed, then she might have something to say. Otherwise it falls outside her job description.

    Johnson is weak and cornered. The future is bleak. One more throw of the dice could be his only option.
  • moonshine said:

    Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.

    On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.

    I have known a few Tory MPs over the years, and I have not met a single one who would ever think it was ever a good time to be in opposition
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
    Are the Tories still planning on repealing the FTPA be because MPs should think about how it protects them.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,131
    edited January 2022

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    Yes. It seems there were many different regulations at different times. For that reason, I think as CycleFree alluded to yesterday, the June 2020 birthday party could actually be one of the least of his worries.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067

    rkrkrk said:

    It's a bit depressing to think that the Tories could just get rid of Boris Johnson, like a snake sheds its skin, and then just poll at 45% all over again.

    I think this time might be different. This might be wishful thinking.
    My sense (older posters can correct me here) is that people wanted different policies to what Thatcher was offering.

    I’m old enough to remember those years well. Viewing the world through my tartan-tinted spectacles back then (some things never change), my nation never wanted what Thatcher was offering. However, the more interesting observation is if the English nation still wanted what she was offering? And I think the answer is, broadly, yes… but with less of the increasingly wild-eyes bonkersness of Maggie herself. Major seemed perfect: a lovely, reasonable, warm-beer and cricket chap, bit boring but believed in basic Thatcherite tenets like free international trade, competition, the single European market and governments keeping their fingers out of trade and industry.

    It wasn’t the policies that put English voters off, it was her rapidly declining mental health.
    I think it was on one sense the policies (poll tax being an obvious example).

    Thatcherism was a kind of permanent revolution, but by that point had run out of vaguely sensible stuff to pursue - had she stayed there would have been other equally objectionable policies following on.
  • Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    moonshine said:

    Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.

    On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.

    I have known a few Tory MPs over the years, and I have not met a single one who would ever think it was ever a good time to be in opposition
    Its always better to have power than not. Tough times will come, but you at least have a chance to ride it out. Good election to lose is a nonsense. Same reason Labour dont really think Boris hanging on is the best outcome as he damages the Tories every day - that may be true, but the glory of helping bring down a PM would always be option 1.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
    Are the Tories still planning on repealing the FTPA be because MPs should think about how it protects them.
    They are. It was supposed to be in committee yesterday but doesn't seem to have been.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,131
    edited January 2022
    Selebian said:

    Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.

    I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.

    I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.

    I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.

    You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
    Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.

    I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
    Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
  • Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    Yes. It seems there were many different regulations at different times. For that reason, I think as CycleFree alluded to yesterday, the June 2020 birthday party could actually be one of the least of his worries.
    I've said he should go because of the parties but the June 2020 birthday cake incident is really scraping the barrel and belittles the extremely serious and fragrant breaches that justify him going.

    If someone promised me a birthday party and all I got was a slice of cake presented at work then I would feel very short-changed. On the other hand, copious amounts of wine in what's become essentially a "lock-in" after work . . . now that's a party.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,523
    Carnyx said:

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)

    Not to decry your points, however!
    Interesting points. The royal wotsit exemption is peculiar in its consequences. I remember complaining about the rickety and perhaps dangerous condition of one of the Commons lifts, and being told with a shrug that health and safety regulations were inapplicable as it was a royal palace (but that no doubt the authorities would get round to having a look in due course). Since I doubt if anyone intended that MPs or indeed royalty should be exposed to greater risk, presumably this all goes back to some casually-worded decree by Henry VIII or something. Others in the PB brainstrust may know more.
  • Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
    Sean thinks he's a gift from said God.
    The difference between God and SeanT is that God (quite thankfully) does not think he is SeanT
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
    Sean thinks he's a gift from said God.
    You've never received an unwanted or terrible gift? :)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,706

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
    Sean thinks he's a gift from said God.
    The difference between God and SeanT is that God (quite thankfully) does not think he is SeanT
    Where does this leave Eric Clapton?
  • kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
    Sean thinks he's a gift from said God.
    You've never received an unwanted or terrible gift? :)
    Occasionally, but thankfully no-one has ever bought me one of his books.
  • Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
    Unfortunately organised religion and the idea that its followers views are the "divine truth" seems to primarily instil dogmatism instead of humility.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    I don't think HMQ concerns herself with the internal affairs of any party. If the Opposition table a motion of no confidence in Parliament, and if it is passed, then she might have something to say. Otherwise it falls outside her job description.

    Johnson is weak and cornered. The future is bleak. One more throw of the dice could be his only option.
    She has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

    In this case, she would be warning him that if he doesn't resign, he'll lose a Commons VONC.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    We're moving now toward the next level in European reactions to the Russia crisis. The one who is driving it is French president Macron. Quick thread.

    https://twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1486284386412683266?s=20
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,660
    moonshine said:

    Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.

    On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.

    "And, you know, there's no such thing as the Conservative Party. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no Party can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our Johnsons'." Rees-Mogg Esq
  • Selebian said:

    Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.

    I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.

    I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.

    I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.

    You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
    Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.

    I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
    Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.

    Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative:
    Overturned money lender tables in the temple
    Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong
    Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong
    Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart

    A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
  • What was Lulu Lytle doing at Johnson's Downing Street birthday bash in June 2020 when Johnson was sending begging notes for cash to do up the Downing Street flat in November 2020?
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited January 2022
    Entertaining read while we await the Gray report…

    “The time Sue Gray fired me

    Boris Johnson, be warned: Britain’s most famous civil servant is never afraid to do things her way.”

    https://www.politico.eu/article/sue-gray-boris-johnson-coronavirus-office-party-downing-street/
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239

    Christ was very socially liberal for his day and age. All his stories are from a liberal perspective. There's nothing conservative he had to say - and the fact that you pretend to believe in Christ while clearly wilfully not understanding him at all doesn't change that.

    Yes. The only political interpretation of Christianity that has ever made sense to me is liberation theology. As a not very good Anglican I'm always very aware that I'm too weak to live up to its tenets. But I have no doubt that it's the purest expression of what Christ would want for our world.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,813

    moonshine said:

    Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.

    On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.

    I have known a few Tory MPs over the years, and I have not met a single one who would ever think it was ever a good time to be in opposition
    There were some Labour supporters here in 2010 claiming that was a good election to have lost and they'd win the next election because of all the tough choices the Tories would have to make.

    Fast forward a decade later and the Tories were in the lead in the polls having just won an 80 seat majority and a fourth election in a decade.

    There's no such thing as a good election to lose. There is such a thing as elections parties deserve to lose, but that speaks volumes about the party - not the election or its situation.
    There are also elections that with the benefit of hindsight did not work out well for the winning party, but with so many unknowns to factor in about the events that would or would not have happened if they had indeed lost them, it is impossible to give a meaningful analysis.

    Case in point: 1992. We have no idea who the Tory party would have elected leader. We have no idea how much Labour would have been blamed (or not) for black Wednesday. We don’t know if the government would have had a majority. We don’t know if the poll tax would have continued to be a millstone upon Major’s exit (if indeed he exited and didn’t stay as leader). The whole thing is just a web of “what ifs” that make it impossible to plot.
  • Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
    "This house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government" is the traditional formulation. There are 359 Tory MPs. It would need a combination of 20 to 40 abstentions or outright votes in favour to bring the government down. In that event HMQ would expect Johnson to nominate a successor. Raab, Truss or Sunak, presumably. Would any of them be able to form a government? Meanwhile the tatters of the Conservative Party would be trying to hold an election to replace a leader who refuses to step down.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    There is no point the incumbent PM not resigning as there would shortly be a confidence vote in the Commons and they would lose. The only point would be if there is some doubt about the state of the House or just bloody mindlessness.
    Are the Tories still planning on repealing the FTPA be because MPs should think about how it protects them.
    Not just the Tories, Labour support the Bill too. It cleared Committee in the Lords yesterday, and Report stage is scheduled for 9th February. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2859
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239
    And what a blast from the past to see the Sunday Correspondent in the list of newspapers commissioning polls...
  • Selebian said:

    Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.

    I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.

    I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.

    I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.

    You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
    Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.

    I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
    Dawkins and others haven't helped in creating a climate of quite often aggressive and proud ignorance about religion, I would say. Religious fundamentalists of all stripes haven't helped either, naturally.
    Dawkins is an unpleasant evangelical atheist with no more ability to prove there is no deity than anyone can prove otherwise. He enjoys mocking those with with religious conviction, which just underlines he is a tosser.
  • Selebian said:

    Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.

    I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.

    I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.

    I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.

    You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
    Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.

    I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
    Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.

    Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative:
    Overturned money lender tables in the temple
    Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong
    Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong
    Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart

    A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
    Excellently put, except that the movement doesn't have his teachings at its heart regrettably. The movement seems to have Paul's teachings at its heart much more and adopted the Roman powers to further its own agenda, instead of listening to what he had to say.

    It was a reverse takeover, the Romans took over the movement instead of the movement taking over the Romans.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    We're moving now toward the next level in European reactions to the Russia crisis. The one who is driving it is French president Macron. Quick thread.

    https://twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1486284386412683266?s=20


    7m
    The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.

    Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon

    We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,779
    moonshine said:

    Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.

    On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.

    His comment that changing leader would require a general election could come back to bite the Tories if they change leader and don't subsequently call an election.
    I wonder about his strange attachment to Johnson. Is this simply because nobody else would be daft enough to have him in Cabinet, or does it have some origin in their time at Eton? Perhaps some kind of fagging or digestive related activity? Maybe one of the PB public school boys could offer some insight, if they're not too busy slagging off Comprehensive schools.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,785
    Mr. Roberts, aye, if someone thinks God is on their side it can be a pretext to justify anything.

    That said, in broader terms, I think political fundamentalists in recent years have been rather less tolerant than the average Christian. Such as this man, who is not vaccinated and is being denied a heart transplant.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60132765
  • Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    I don't think HMQ concerns herself with the internal affairs of any party. If the Opposition table a motion of no confidence in Parliament, and if it is passed, then she might have something to say. Otherwise it falls outside her job description.

    Johnson is weak and cornered. The future is bleak. One more throw of the dice could be his only option.
    She has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

    In this case, she would be warning him that if he doesn't resign, he'll lose a Commons VONC.
    Obviously she'd be saying that if she spends a lot of time on here. She might even have a few bob on it. But predicting the outcome of a HoC vote is a tricky business, even for (especially for?) a reigning monarch.
  • moonshine said:

    Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.

    On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.

    I have known a few Tory MPs over the years, and I have not met a single one who would ever think it was ever a good time to be in opposition
    There were some Labour supporters here in 2010 claiming that was a good election to have lost and they'd win the next election because of all the tough choices the Tories would have to make.

    Fast forward a decade later and the Tories were in the lead in the polls having just won an 80 seat majority and a fourth election in a decade.

    There's no such thing as a good election to lose. There is such a thing as elections parties deserve to lose, but that speaks volumes about the party - not the election or its situation.
    There are also elections that with the benefit of hindsight did not work out well for the winning party, but with so many unknowns to factor in about the events that would or would not have happened if they had indeed lost them, it is impossible to give a meaningful analysis.

    Case in point: 1992. We have no idea who the Tory party would have elected leader. We have no idea how much Labour would have been blamed (or not) for black Wednesday. We don’t know if the government would have had a majority. We don’t know if the poll tax would have continued to be a millstone upon Major’s exit (if indeed he exited and didn’t stay as leader). The whole thing is just a web of “what ifs” that make it impossible to plot.
    The issue by 1997 is far more that the Tories were clearly unfit for office (while Labour pretended to be fit for office) rather than simply the blame for Black Wednesday by itself.

    Yes the Tories might have not gotten into such a mess and might have sorted themselves out sooner had they lost in 1992, but the primary issue from early 1990s until David Cameron took over was that the Conservative Party simply wasn't fit for office.
  • Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
    Unfortunately organised religion and the idea that its followers views are the "divine truth" seems to primarily instil dogmatism instead of humility.
    Only on the extremes. I was brought up with Roman Catholicism, but from the Irish tradition. It is a lot more pragmatic than many people want to believe.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067
    edited January 2022
    .
    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    A belief in God does not somehow endow virtue, any more or any less than a disbelief. An interest in the possibility of a greater power can induce humility. Once again Sean is an exception to this rule.
    Sean thinks he's a gift from said God.
    You've never received an unwanted or terrible gift? :)
    He's perhaps a regift ?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Still much uncertainty but fwiw am told by WH sources that Gray report will “100%” be handed over today. Also told that Gray has already briefed No10 on contents and that “it’s not good news.”

    Doesn’t mean we’ll see it today, of course, nor exactly what we’ll see when we do.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1486275470807257090
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    I don't think HMQ concerns herself with the internal affairs of any party. If the Opposition table a motion of no confidence in Parliament, and if it is passed, then she might have something to say. Otherwise it falls outside her job description.

    Johnson is weak and cornered. The future is bleak. One more throw of the dice could be his only option.
    She has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

    In this case, she would be warning him that if he doesn't resign, he'll lose a Commons VONC.
    Obviously she'd be saying that if she spends a lot of time on here. She might even have a few bob on it. But predicting the outcome of a HoC vote is a tricky business, even for (especially for?) a reigning monarch.
    Not in a world where (a) the PCP has no-confidenced him; (b) the Conservative Party has elected a new leader; and quite possibly (c) the new leader has kicked him out of the party for refusing to resign as PM.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    moonshine said:

    Rees Mogg appears to have a form of Boris Derangement Syndrome. It is most odd to observe.

    On topic and regarding the absence of letter writing assassins, I begin to wonder if the weight of the Party in safe seats have decided they’d rather lose the next election and let Labour deal with the covid bills. Which is holding back the letter writers because they don’t want to risk Boris winning the VONC. The Raabs of this world would rather spend the next two years in a state of over promotion and then be retired by the electorate, than spend the next two years on the backbenches before likely meeting the same fate anyway.

    His comment that changing leader would require a general election could come back to bite the Tories if they change leader and don't subsequently call an election.
    I wonder about his strange attachment to Johnson. Is this simply because nobody else would be daft enough to have him in Cabinet, or does it have some origin in their time at Eton? Perhaps some kind of fagging or digestive related activity? Maybe one of the PB public school boys could offer some insight, if they're not too busy slagging off Comprehensive schools.
    Oh it will come back to bite that - but the hope is that it discourages a few MPs from voting against Boris come what may be an inevitable VONC.

    In fact I wonder if that's the point and JRM knows the numbers are there to trigger a VONC but that there are not enough votes yet for it to be won.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,032
    edited January 2022
    Carnyx said:

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)

    Not to decry your points, however!
    My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel

    It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them

    I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter

    In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Thread:

    One can't help but think that the Conservative Party would at this moment be wise to reflect on 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑦𝑛.

    https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1486124020592435214?s=20

    Responses:

    Oddly, this thread has angered more supporters of Jeremy Corbyn than Conservatives!

    https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1486269399795486725?s=20
  • Mr. Roberts, aye, if someone thinks God is on their side it can be a pretext to justify anything.

    That said, in broader terms, I think political fundamentalists in recent years have been rather less tolerant than the average Christian. Such as this man, who is not vaccinated and is being denied a heart transplant.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60132765

    Then he should get vaccinated.

    Hearts are a scarce resource sadly. Would you give a liver to an alcoholic.

    Nobody is denying him the right to get vaccinated. He's made his own choice, knowing the consequences.
  • Mr. Roberts, aye, if someone thinks God is on their side it can be a pretext to justify anything.

    That said, in broader terms, I think political fundamentalists in recent years have been rather less tolerant than the average Christian. Such as this man, who is not vaccinated and is being denied a heart transplant.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60132765

    Then he should get vaccinated.

    Hearts are a scarce resource sadly. Would you give a liver to an alcoholic.

    Nobody is denying him the right to get vaccinated. He's made his own choice, knowing the consequences.
    With you on that one. To be unvaccinated is a choice, even if it is a particularly selfish and stupid one. It is also a choice that may cause other options to be unavailable. To that I say, tough shit, get vaccinated.
  • Selebian said:

    Mr. Roberts, interesting you choose to call him Christ.

    I enjoyed Religious Studies at school. Easily the most interesting and useful subject I took.

    I enjoyed it too, and I enjoyed vigorous debates with my schools Chaplain.

    I recall when we had one set of exams and the results came out some of the other kids in my class were upset that the top two grades had gone to the classes only atheist and only Jew.

    You don't need to be religious to understand religion, or be interested in it. Indeed for a critical understanding, it can help not to go in with your own prejudices.
    Indeed, for better and for worse, religion has shaped (and continues to shape) the world around us. You can't understand history or even the present without an undertsanding of religion.

    I also enjoyed RE at school, as an agnostic.
    Exactly. Whether you believe or not Christianity has literally shaped the world around it.

    Still chuckling at Rev HY's suggestion that Jesus Christ was a social conservative:
    Overturned money lender tables in the temple
    Told the elders of his religion they were completely wrong
    Told the established client state of Rome that their everything was wrong
    Founded a revolutionary movement which overthrew the pagan Roman state and created one with his teachings at its heart

    A social conservative would have said the money lenders were fine and fellow Jews should listen to their Rabbis and not challenge the paganistic Roman power that dominated the known world.
    Excellently put, except that the movement doesn't have his teachings at its heart regrettably. The movement seems to have Paul's teachings at its heart much more and adopted the Roman powers to further its own agenda, instead of listening to what he had to say.

    It was a reverse takeover, the Romans took over the movement instead of the movement taking over the Romans.
    Paul's teachings are "god breathed" of course...

    Like it not Christianity was a revolutionary movement. Started in a relative backwater in the Roman empire it relatively quickly not only transformed its own local state, it overthrew the social framework the Roman empire was built on. Then Holy Mother Church became the first global superpower controlling the rulers of almost every country. We have seen a pair of 1,000 year christian empires and its still the dominant influence on global society.

    Social conservative? Please. Even if we wanted to talk about today's politics - and faith has nothing to do with party politics - Christianity is a far better fit with Starmer and his Party than Mr String of affairs and discarded bastards and his party.
  • Carnyx said:

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)

    Not to decry your points, however!
    My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel

    It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them

    I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter

    In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
    ...and so does the electorate in May. All decent minded Conservatives should stay away, vote for another party or spoil their ballots if Johnson is still leader.
  • Carnyx said:

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)

    Not to decry your points, however!
    My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel

    It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them

    I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter

    In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
    ...and so does the electorate in May. All decent minded Conservatives should stay away, vote for another party or spoil their ballots if Johnson is still leader.
    Just as decent minded Conservatives did in May 2019 😉
  • boulay said:

    Heathener said:

    Religion.

    Dreading the moment SeanT parks himself back on here after several glasses and begins bragging about how he hates teenagers and everything they stand for, except seducing (and buying) them for sex. But it's all okay because he believes in God and thinks atheists are almost as bad as millenials.

    Which kinda illustrates the point: the rank hypocrisy of some of those who claim to believe in God.

    Are you claiming that a poster called Sean T ,who is identifiable to others, buys teenagers for sex?!?

    Pretty unacceptable comment.
    The original candidly admitted it I believe, though always careful to state that they were on or above the age of consent.

    Apropos of nothing I've just checked and the Thai age of consent is 15.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    Thread:

    One can't help but think that the Conservative Party would at this moment be wise to reflect on 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑏𝑦𝑛.

    https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1486124020592435214?s=20

    Responses:

    Oddly, this thread has angered more supporters of Jeremy Corbyn than Conservatives!

    https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1486269399795486725?s=20

    Corbyn supporters are always angry.

    On the thread, the Tory mp defence of everyone breached rules is just silly. People forgive the little things, sure, but it isnt hypocritical to expect those in power over us to be held to higher standards.
  • Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    Applicant said:

    “there was no need for a second ballot”.

    Constitutionally there was no need for a ballot at all. The PM remains in office until a VONC in Parliament. Thatcher could have ignored her party's 'local poll' and stood her ground. "I'm staying until HoC passes a VONC'" she might well have said. How many Tory MPs would have failed to support her?

    This is not irrelevant to the current situation. The Conservative Party is nothing more than a voluntary association. It has no constitutional significance at all.

    If the Conservative Party elects a new leader and the PM doesn't resign, HMQ will be having a word.
    I don't think HMQ concerns herself with the internal affairs of any party. If the Opposition table a motion of no confidence in Parliament, and if it is passed, then she might have something to say. Otherwise it falls outside her job description.

    Johnson is weak and cornered. The future is bleak. One more throw of the dice could be his only option.
    She has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.

    In this case, she would be warning him that if he doesn't resign, he'll lose a Commons VONC.
    Obviously she'd be saying that if she spends a lot of time on here. She might even have a few bob on it. But predicting the outcome of a HoC vote is a tricky business, even for (especially for?) a reigning monarch.
    Not in a world where (a) the PCP has no-confidenced him; (b) the Conservative Party has elected a new leader; and quite possibly (c) the new leader has kicked him out of the party for refusing to resign as PM.
    It requires a touching faith in the cohesion of the Conservative Party to foresee such a benign outcome. As I said upthread, Johnson is weak and cornered and 'going quietly' doesn't come natural to him. In fact I'd say his personal prospects are pretty bleak either way, but we know he's a gambler and he knows his record.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    eek said:

    We're moving now toward the next level in European reactions to the Russia crisis. The one who is driving it is French president Macron. Quick thread.

    https://twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1486284386412683266?s=20


    7m
    The crucial moment will be Macron's phone call with Putin on Friday morning. Nobody can be sure what the French president will tell Putin about the European position -- as nobody else will be present.

    Which means Europe will surrender sometime on Friday Afternoon

    We don't call the Cheese-eating French Surrender monkeys without reason - although there may be extra caviar in Paris later this year.
    I’m sure Macron will avoid showing off the fur coat, caviar and vodka in public, at least until after the election.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)

    Not to decry your points, however!
    My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel

    It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them

    I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter

    In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
    Problem is 12 years in itd be expected to be a bad night. By tying their response to it it might give them excuse not to act if its not apocalyptically bad.

    Comes down to Wales and Scotland perhaps, even if they are full of light weights.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    When a clown moves into a palace, he does not become a king. The palace becomes a circus.

    https://twitter.com/ElizabethBangs/status/1485169558470205442?s=20
  • Test
  • eekeek Posts: 28,368

    Carnyx said:

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)

    Not to decry your points, however!
    My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel

    It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them

    I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter

    In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
    I don't see the May elections looking that newsworthy for Boris - the Tory party will lose seats but don't have many councils where control is at risk of being lost - beyond I think Newcastle-under-Lyme
  • Carnyx said:

    Good morning

    An interesting point was made by a lawyer on Sky this morning that the May 2020 events carry a fixed penalty fine of £100 but those on the eve of Prince Philips funeral carry a fine of £10,000 as they were under different regulations

    He said the police investigation take into account the covid regulations at the time of the alleged offence, and these did differ over the period

    He also added that the actual organisers of the events could face a misconduct in public office charge which can lead to a prison sentence

    OTOH as Cyclefree said the other day, it's the details of the law that count. And that point about the legislation possibly not actually applying to No 10 as a royal peculiar wotsit could be a get out of jail free card for all we know. (Politically tin-eared as it would be to deploy that, Mr J could claim with some justice [sic] that an independent court made that decision.)

    Not to decry your points, however!
    My observation on all of this and discounting those who want Boris gone because of Brexit or are his natural opponents I cannot see Boris having actually been involved in organising any of these events and it does seem that some civil servants are facing very serious allegations which are far beyond a fixed penalty notice which I understand is paid to the local authority and plays no part in anyone's need to declare it at a later date, including any visas applications for travel

    It is clear that quite a few of these events have been discounted as of no interest, as the police are not looking into all of them

    I believe Boris has been foolish but I am not sure there is a smoking gun, though the court of public opinion is a different matter

    In the absence of the smoking gun I expect Boris to be in post for the May elections following which the conservative mps have a decision to make
    ...and so does the electorate in May. All decent minded Conservatives should stay away, vote for another party or spoil their ballots if Johnson is still leader.
    Just as decent minded Conservatives did in May 2019 😉
    Sadly many (tho not all) voted for a crypto-fascist party with a leader and founder who has been called out as a racist by people who know him. Best move on from that subject perhaps Phil?
This discussion has been closed.