I hate to say it but, despite not having watched a moment of PMQs, as I was having a siesta here in Colombo, I found Starmer's performance surprisingly wooden and starchy. His demeanour is quite odd, it is something beyond smugness, a kind of theatrical rigor mortis
However, as I say, this opinion must be tempered by the fact I didn't watch any of it, so I am just making this shit up
You always make shit up but on this occasion you were spot on.
Lawyer not a leader thats Captain Hindsight
You do know that some folk on the left are setting up a new party? You could have another attempt to support Mr Thicky, sorry, Mr Corbyn, to the highest office in the land. The only problem is timing. I think people have had enough of clowns.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. ...
Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
The key weakness it exposes in our constitution is the lack of legitimacy of the position of the Monarch. This lack of legitimacy means that the Monarch is completely unable to execute its residual functions for fear of inserting itself on one side of a political controversy.
Instead the Monarch does only exactly as told by the PM, hoping that the PM has the sense of fair play that you mention and behaves as though the Monarch is capable of independent action.
This is why we need an elected President along the lines that Ireland has.
When was the last time the President of Ireland dismissed an Irish PM? Answer: Never.
The Irish President like our monarch is obliged to accept as Taisoeach whoever the Dail (Ireland's Parliament) designates as Irish PM without the right to refuse it
When was Mr Johnson the Taoiseach (NB spelling)? And when did a Taoiseach act like Mr J?
I am a cussed sort of a person. I also value the rule of law. One of the reasons I really loathe this government is the way it is undermining it.
But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.
I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that - - legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed - there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law - the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.
It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.
My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.
There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.
What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.
Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.
But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.
I'm amused that Starmer fans are trying to spin that Starmer did badly there because he wants Boris to survive.
I watched it and didn't think he did badly. Bozo was in full on bluster mode and that rallied his diehards. That is all. Nothing to get excited about yet.
I hate to say it but, despite not having watched a moment of PMQs, as I was having a siesta here in Colombo, I found Starmer's performance surprisingly wooden and starchy. His demeanour is quite odd, it is something beyond smugness, a kind of theatrical rigor mortis
However, as I say, this opinion must be tempered by the fact I didn't watch any of it, so I am just making this shit up
You always make shit up but on this occasion you were spot on.
Lawyer not a leader thats Captain Hindsight
You do know that some folk on the left are setting up a new party? You could have another attempt to support Mr Thicky, sorry, Mr Corbyn, to the highest office in the land. The only problem is timing. I think people have had enough of clowns.
Vote thicky not Captain Shitty!
Sounds like a good slogan. Suggest you apply to the Comrades, I am sure they have a role for you.
I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. ...
Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
The key weakness it exposes in our constitution is the lack of legitimacy of the position of the Monarch. This lack of legitimacy means that the Monarch is completely unable to execute its residual functions for fear of inserting itself on one side of a political controversy.
Instead the Monarch does only exactly as told by the PM, hoping that the PM has the sense of fair play that you mention and behaves as though the Monarch is capable of independent action.
This is why we need an elected President along the lines that Ireland has.
When was the last time the President of Ireland dismissed an Irish PM? Answer: Never.
The Irish President like our monarch is obliged to accept as Taisoeach whoever the Dail (Ireland's Parliament) designates as Irish PM without the right to refuse it
When was Mr Johnson the Taoiseach (NB spelling)? And when did a Taoiseach act like Mr J?
However the point remains that the Irish President like the UK Monarch bows to the will of Parliament in terms of who is PM. As longer as a majority of Parliament still gives confidence to the PM then the Irish President and UK Monarch has to accept that PM will stay in power.
The French President has the power to dismiss the French PM but then the French President is an elected party political President with significant powers, not a mere apolitical and ceremonial Head of State like the UK Monarch and Irish President
I wonder if Sir Keir was feeling the pressure there - like a spin bowler on a turning pitch on the last day of a test match with all your team expecting you to secure the victory. What would it do to Labour morale if Boris somehow brazened it out and then the polls started to narrow in the coming months? Would they forgive Sir Keir for having Boris's destruction in the palm of his hand and then dropping it?
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
If I were he (relieved I am not), I would probably look at it that way too. He is on a win-win for the time being at least.
So what's happening with the report, then ? Gray apparently wanted it published "within hours". We're to getting to nearer a day now, and the government is apparently trying to tinker around the edges.
Johnson's demeanour suggest to me someone who now knows that all the big revelations have come out. He is therefore past the peak of embarrassment.
He (and a number of Tories) have also evidently decided it's better to brazen this out, Trump style, even if that means telling the general public they are unreasonable puritans, rather than going apologetic. It worked with them in the Cummings era with prorogation of parliament and various other nose-thumbing efforts, so presumably they reason it will work for them now.
I think they're right. And Ukraine will save Boris.
Hello. Here's some straw. Would you like to clutch it?
PMQ not great for the Boris is toasters. However, let's see what Sue says, and let's not forget Dominic C. His one, best chance to get BJ out is on publication of Gray - BJ limping on to and being defeated at GE24 wouldn't look like a win, and he has expressly said he is saving up goodies for publication post Gray. So all still to play for
Also looks as if BJ has been nailed lying over Nowzad, but I don't think he lied in the House about that.
Johnson's demeanour suggest to me someone who now knows that all the big revelations have come out. He is therefore past the peak of embarrassment.
He (and a number of Tories) have also evidently decided it's better to brazen this out, Trump style, even if that means telling the general public they are unreasonable puritans, rather than going apologetic. It worked with them in the Cummings era with prorogation of parliament and various other nose-thumbing efforts, so presumably they reason it will work for them now.
I think they're right. And Ukraine will save Boris.
Hello. Here's some straw. Would you like to clutch it?
As someone with deep seated contempt for this PM and everything he and his flunkies stand for, I would dearly like you to be right. But history has proved that cads get away with it, over and over again.
I'm amused that Starmer fans are trying to spin that Starmer did badly there because he wants Boris to survive.
I watched it and didn't think he did badly. Bozo was in full on bluster mode and that rallied his diehards. That is all. Nothing to get excited about yet.
Unfortunately the die hard MPs have a vote in a leadership contest. If they come out of PMQs with more morale, that’s a bad thing.
I was reminded somewhat of Thatchers VONC performance in 1990 today. Not because Boris had full mastery of the brief (he never will) or that he cut an imperious figure (he didn’t). But he was combative, fired up and dismissive. It gave his MPs cheer, from what I could see. And cheer in MPs is the sort of thing that doesn’t lead to successful leadership changes (obviously for Maggie it came too late at that point).
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
I wonder if Sir Keir was feeling the pressure there - like a spin bowler on a turning pitch on the last day of a test match with all your team expecting you to secure the victory. What would it do to Labour morale if Boris somehow brazened it out and then the polls started to narrow in the coming months? Would they forgive Sir Keir for having Boris's destruction in the palm of his hand and then dropping it?
I think he should have limited his partygate questions to the first one, then telegraph that this is not the only area where the government is failing and use the remaining questions to bombard Johnson on other fronts. Particularly cost of living. There are plenty of opportunities. It would have neutralised the PM's bluster about "focusing on the important things".
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.
There was speculation around the time Johnson took over that he would be able to ignore a vote of no confidence going against him in the Commons, wait out the two weeks, and force an election in preference to allowing a different PM take over.
That might be the scenario he would suggest in an attempt to keep MPs fearful of losing their seats in line.
That appears to be what happens under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. It isn't a mechanism to force the PM to resign and it's unclear whether the result of codifying the form of confidence motion has been to make it impossible for the house to indicate its support for a successor (they can only stave off an election 14 days after a no confidence vote by voting confidence in HM Government, not a notional alternative government - so the previous government has to have resigned first).
Another instance of the FTPA messing up the constitution.
I think in such a scenario (renegade PM holding the house to hostage) the only way to prevent a GE would be for the house to vote confidence in HMG. I don’t think the FTPA has messed with the convention that a PM who loses the confidence of the house has to tender his or her resignation to the monarch, though it is unclear at what point the confidence is lost (I.e at the point of the VONC or the 14 days elapsing).
Whatever the confusion in that situation, I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. So if the Tory Party MPs were to notify her that they would get behind an alternative figure as PM, and there were enough of them to sustain a majority in the HoC, whatever Boris’ position on the matter I suspect the dismissal would take place and a new PM would take over, to table a vote of confidence in HMG and stop the 14 days elapsing.
Of course all of this would be a complete mess and in many ways our crisis moment just like the storming of the Capitol. Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
I don't think it's confusing, beyond the fact that the name of the act isn't really what it does. The old system gave the PM a weird prerogative that they could abuse, and the FTPA fixes this.
Without FTPA: PM can call an election whenever they like, technically they're within their rights to call an election to prevent themselves from being replaced by a new leader.
With FTPA: Parliament is in the driving seat, so if the majority of MPs want to kick out their PM and substitute someone else, they can. The mechanism is: Vote of confidence to dismiss the old PM, indicate to The Queen (by a formal vote or a letter or whatever) that they support someone else, and that person becomes PM.
If MPs go ahead and vote to repeal the FTPA, they're writing a blank cheque to their PM, who they know only cares about himself, to send them on a kamikaze run to save his own job. It's probably not in their best interests to let him do that.
Under FTPA a vote of confidence doesn't dismiss the old PM - it simply sets the clock ticking for a GE.
That's what I said: The vote of confidence doesn't dismiss the old PM (likewise under the old system). Doing that *then finding somebody else who can command a majority* dismisses the old PM. The difference is that with the FTPA, MPs unambiguously get a chance to do that, whereas without it the rejected PM may be able to dissolve parliament instead.
But under FTPA the only thing that stops an election is a vote of confidence in "HM Government" - not "somebody else". You can't vote confidence in them until they are appointed, and they can't be appointed unless the PM resigns or is dismissed. Agree that the rejected PM can't dissolve parliament, but that's what happens automatically 14 days later.
If MPs find someone they support the PM resigns or is dismissed. What do you think the 14-day period is for, just to give everyone a chance to see if they change their minds?
FTPA isn't a great bit of legislation and I think it was drafted assuming that a PM would behave honourably in line with convention and resign. The 14 days are to allow time to find someone who can command the confidence of the house - I've not gone back to Hansard or the explanatory notes to the Bill to check but my best guess is that nobody raised the question if what would happen if a PM refused to resign. There might be some other authority that makes it sufficiently clear that a PM has to go in that case such that HMQ would dismiss him if he doesn't resign, but I've not seen anything to that effect.
The thing is that, in principle, a PM might be able to assemble a new coalition of MPs to support them, after losing a confidence vote, so I don't think you'd necessarily want it to be automatic that they had to resign.
You could imagine a scenario where a Labour PM was reliant on the Lib Dems for a majority, lost their support, but was able to form a new majority by doing a deal with the SNP.
The key missing link is for the Commons to have a way of indicating whether they do have confidence in anyone else, so that person can take over.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
And you are one of the loons who obviously still love him. Let me let you into a secret. He is shit. Most other people have caught up with this.
I'm amused that Starmer fans are trying to spin that Starmer did badly there because he wants Boris to survive.
I watched it and didn't think he did badly. Bozo was in full on bluster mode and that rallied his diehards. That is all. Nothing to get excited about yet.
Unfortunately the die hard MPs have a vote in a leadership contest. If they come out of PMQs with more morale, that’s a bad thing.
I was reminded somewhat of Thatchers VONC performance in 1990 today. Not because Boris had full mastery of the brief (he never will) or that he cut an imperious figure (he didn’t). But he was combative, fired up and dismissive. It gave his MPs cheer, from what I could see. And cheer in MPs is the sort of thing that doesn’t lead to successful leadership changes (obviously for Maggie it came too late at that point).
I'm amused that Starmer fans are trying to spin that Starmer did badly there because he wants Boris to survive.
I watched it and didn't think he did badly. Bozo was in full on bluster mode and that rallied his diehards. That is all. Nothing to get excited about yet.
Unfortunately the die hard MPs have a vote in a leadership contest. If they come out of PMQs with more morale, that’s a bad thing.
I was reminded somewhat of Thatchers VONC performance in 1990 today. Not because Boris had full mastery of the brief (he never will) or that he cut an imperious figure (he didn’t). But he was combative, fired up and dismissive. It gave his MPs cheer, from what I could see. And cheer in MPs is the sort of thing that doesn’t lead to successful leadership changes (obviously for Maggie it came too late at that point).
The thing is, everyone in the PCP knows they specialise in ritualistic, and often later ultimately false , displays of loyalty. We saw that with Duncan-Smith, Cameron and then May. If the fallout from the actual publication of the report is bad, I'm not sure this public theatre of loyalty will make much difference.
It is craven and pathetic, and I hope it loses them custom. Get rid of the Kovid Kabuki masks
I expect all supermarkets will just revert to their pre-Plan B policies. Sainsburys and Tesco both requested mask wea ring, pre Plan B - Sainsbury's rather more insistently than Tesco, which felt more like going through the motions to my ears. Mask wearing in Sainsburys in Sale was certainly much more enthusiastic than mask wearing in Tesco. Co-op, much to my surprise, was quite clear that it was optional. You'd expect Co-op to be the wokest of the woke, but pleasingly this shows you can't always use the same pigeonholes that you could for the previous issues. My reading is that each supermarket is reading the preferences of its tribe of customers - the Co-op demographic is rather more working class than Tesco, which is in turn a notch down the scale from Sainsbury's.
Agree entirely that it is craven and pathetic though.
It seems quite random. M&S (certainly in Camden) were quite insistent that masks were *optional*, and indeed mask wearing dropped well below 50%, down to about 20-30% at its lowest
Mask wearing in Sainsbury's Camden was supposedly mandatory but very much optional in effect. Camden is an unruly and disparate place full of drunks, oddballs, layabouts, intellectuals, worldly travellers, sex addicts, smack addicts, bibliophiles and ex-cons, and that's just ME, so it's a hard place to keep in line
The thing is, unless they're going to challenge maskless people (which they generally haven't been doing even when there is a mandate(*), it's always going to be effectively optional.
(*) Anecdote, but I've been challenged maybe three times in the 18 months since the first mandate, and only once in the most recent period. I stopped wearing the sunflower lanyard last summer.
Shortly people with active covid will be allowed to walk around supermarkets and go to pubs and restaurant maskless. Meanwhile we are sacking NHS workers who are unvaccinated. Seems a pretty piss poor bit of risk analysis.
Personally, I would suggest that supermarkets have masked mornings and mask less afternoons, so people can shop as they prefer.
Why not just make it voluntary? Those who are worried are at liberty to wear a mask of their choice, be it normal or FFP. Nobody is stopping them.
It reminds me of that 80s board game Mastermind – just trial and error albeit with letters rather than coloured pegs.
Cryptic crosswords I love – I relish the lateral thinking – Wordle is just dull and procedural.
Realise I'm in a minority, but huh.
It's not just trial and error. Unlike Mastermind, you are only allowed certain combinations. That is, valid words. You aren't allowed to just guess AEIOU and go from there.
Not saying it's for everyone by any means, but IMO that makes it a little more interesting than Mastermind.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
And you are one of the loons who obviously still love him. Let me let you into a secret. He is shit. Most other people have caught up with this.
I have said, explicitly, that he should go. Because you can't have a PM who lies THIS much, so often, and on such an emotive issue - a fucking plague!
However that does not blind me to the motivations of the various actors here. Labour are still frit of Boris, in a way they are not frit of anyone else in the Tory party. They would breathe an intense sigh of relief if he departed. So don't listen to anyone on the Left who says "we spared him so he could limp on and damage the Tories blah blah"
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
And you are one of the loons who obviously still love him. Let me let you into a secret. He is shit. Most other people have caught up with this.
I hate to say it but, despite not having watched a moment of PMQs, as I was having a siesta here in Colombo, I found Starmer's performance surprisingly wooden and starchy. His demeanour is quite odd, it is something beyond smugness, a kind of theatrical rigor mortis
However, as I say, this opinion must be tempered by the fact I didn't watch any of it, so I am just making this shit up
You always make shit up but on this occasion you were spot on.
Lawyer not a leader thats Captain Hindsight
You do know that some folk on the left are setting up a new party? You could have another attempt to support Mr Thicky, sorry, Mr Corbyn, to the highest office in the land. The only problem is timing. I think people have had enough of clowns.
Not vintage Starmer, but if Sue Gray's report is published in the next few hours, no one will remember.
The key question was "Keir Starmer asks if Johnson thinks the part of the ministerial code saying that ministers who knowingly mislead parliament must resign applies to him". I wonder if someone has tipped off Labour about the conclusions of the report...
Yep, if that is some people's idea of winning an argument then they are the type of fools that Johnson likes. What was interesting though was that he was clearly playing to the gallery and putting his all into it. He doesn't look like someone who is about to throw in the towel.
Totally with you on this. Johnson support or admiration equates to a lack of some quite important faculties. There were valid excuses in Dec 19, but not now. I also agree there is no way he'll be resigning whatever Gray says or the Police do. I never thought he would. Tory MPs will act or they won't. Probably they won't - I think the value bet is him surviving to at least the summer and maybe through to the GE. Hope I'm wrong, needless to say.
Like @Leon didn't see any of PMQs but on the impartial and judicious reporting on here it looks like another wasted effort.
Liz Truss was doing her bulldog Britain impression on the Today program today. Quite an interesting interview about how difficult it is to have a sensible policy on Ukraine. Once she got beyond her headlines Truss was wobbling a bit. But then, with an almost audible sigh, Martha turned to the parties once again. Her heart really wasn’t in it and it frankly sounded absurd juxtaposed to the first part of the conversation.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
Despite Johnson's PB PMQs enormous victory, the BBC lunchtime news edit was horrible for Johnson.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
And you are one of the loons who obviously still love him. Let me let you into a secret. He is shit. Most other people have caught up with this.
I have said, explicitly, that he should go. Because you can't have a PM who lies THIS much, so often, and on such an emotive issue - a fucking plague!
However that does not blind me to the motivations of the various actors here. Labour are still frit of Boris, in a way they are not frit of anyone else in the Tory party. They would breathe an intense sigh of relief if he departed. So don't listen to anyone on the Left who says "we spared him so he could limp on and damage the Tories blah blah"
It's patent nonsense
I am not sure it is nonsense, but I am also not sure your view doesn't have some validity also. They (because though I loath Johnson I don't fall in their camp) probably do wonder whether he might regain his appeal. I don't think they need worry. His brand of Conservatism has about much chance of success as you or I would do if we opened up a jewellers and put "Ratners" over the door.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
And you are one of the loons who obviously still love him. Let me let you into a secret. He is shit. Most other people have caught up with this.
I have said, explicitly, that he should go. Because you can't have a PM who lies THIS much, so often, and on such an emotive issue - a fucking plague!
However that does not blind me to the motivations of the various actors here. Labour are still frit of Boris, in a way they are not frit of anyone else in the Tory party. They would breathe an intense sigh of relief if he departed. So don't listen to anyone on the Left who says "we spared him so he could limp on and damage the Tories blah blah"
It's patent nonsense
Electorally "Boris" brings volatility to both parties. You could get a Tory majority or even a Labour one if he stays on til 2024.
Whereas with someone like Sunak it would be odds on either a tiny Tory majority or hung parliament. Very hard to see a Labour majority vs Sunak imo.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
Boris is a busted flush. I do not think people are scared of him or his electoral prowess anymore. I think that has gone and won't come back.
Omicron still pretty potent, in whatever flavour, across Europe
Tim White @TWMCLtd · 1h More and more #Covid19 case records in Europe:
#Austria 34,011 (+23%); 11 more deaths #Estonia 5,845 new cases (+85%); 5 dead #Hungary hits 20k for the first time, 20,174 cases (+35%); 69 died #Lithuania 9,490 (+52%); 12 #Poland 53,420 (+75%); 276 #Slovenia 17,491 (+42%); 12
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
And you are one of the loons who obviously still love him. Let me let you into a secret. He is shit. Most other people have caught up with this.
Boris is shitty.
Captain Hindight is shitty
Vote Mr Thicky
Keep at it. You'll definitely get a job as a PR advisor for Corbyn
Boris just pissing off the entire legal profession there.
Most criminal and legal aid and human rights lawyers vote Labour anyway, even many corporate and commercial lawyers would now vote Starmer Labour or LD not Tory as they oppose Brexit.
Lawyers are hardly Boris' core vote and the redwall and most Tory Leavers are not exactly in love with lawyers either
The list of those you want to ‘get lost’ gains another entry.
It is craven and pathetic, and I hope it loses them custom. Get rid of the Kovid Kabuki masks
I expect all supermarkets will just revert to their pre-Plan B policies. Sainsburys and Tesco both requested mask wea ring, pre Plan B - Sainsbury's rather more insistently than Tesco, which felt more like going through the motions to my ears. Mask wearing in Sainsburys in Sale was certainly much more enthusiastic than mask wearing in Tesco. Co-op, much to my surprise, was quite clear that it was optional. You'd expect Co-op to be the wokest of the woke, but pleasingly this shows you can't always use the same pigeonholes that you could for the previous issues. My reading is that each supermarket is reading the preferences of its tribe of customers - the Co-op demographic is rather more working class than Tesco, which is in turn a notch down the scale from Sainsbury's.
Agree entirely that it is craven and pathetic though.
It seems quite random. M&S (certainly in Camden) were quite insistent that masks were *optional*, and indeed mask wearing dropped well below 50%, down to about 20-30% at its lowest
Mask wearing in Sainsbury's Camden was supposedly mandatory but very much optional in effect. Camden is an unruly and disparate place full of drunks, oddballs, layabouts, intellectuals, worldly travellers, sex addicts, smack addicts, bibliophiles and ex-cons, and that's just ME, so it's a hard place to keep in line
The thing is, unless they're going to challenge maskless people (which they generally haven't been doing even when there is a mandate(*), it's always going to be effectively optional.
(*) Anecdote, but I've been challenged maybe three times in the 18 months since the first mandate, and only once in the most recent period. I stopped wearing the sunflower lanyard last summer.
Shortly people with active covid will be allowed to walk around supermarkets and go to pubs and restaurant maskless. Meanwhile we are sacking NHS workers who are unvaccinated. Seems a pretty piss poor bit of risk analysis.
Personally, I would suggest that supermarkets have masked mornings and mask less afternoons, so people can shop as they prefer.
I'm still amazed that so many people are testing themselves so much.....
I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. ...
Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
The key weakness it exposes in our constitution is the lack of legitimacy of the position of the Monarch. This lack of legitimacy means that the Monarch is completely unable to execute its residual functions for fear of inserting itself on one side of a political controversy.
Instead the Monarch does only exactly as told by the PM, hoping that the PM has the sense of fair play that you mention and behaves as though the Monarch is capable of independent action.
This is why we need an elected President along the lines that Ireland has.
When was the last time the President of Ireland dismissed an Irish PM? Answer: Never.
The Irish President like our monarch is obliged to accept as Taisoeach whoever the Dail (Ireland's Parliament) designates as Irish PM without the right to refuse it
When was Mr Johnson the Taoiseach (NB spelling)? And when did a Taoiseach act like Mr J?
However the point remains that the Irish President like the UK Monarch bows to the will of Parliament in terms of who is PM. As longer as a majority of Parliament still gives confidence to the PM then the Irish President and UK Monarch has to accept that PM will stay in power.
The French President has the power to dismiss the French PM but then the French President is an elected party political President with significant powers, not a mere apolitical and ceremonial Head of State like the UK Monarch and Irish President
So the French system is different from ours? Fascinating. What I love about this place is that it's genuinely educational. And it's all done without a hint of condescension.
I'm amused that Starmer fans are trying to spin that Starmer did badly there because he wants Boris to survive.
I watched it and didn't think he did badly. Bozo was in full on bluster mode and that rallied his diehards. That is all. Nothing to get excited about yet.
Not a great - nor terrible - performance from Starmer, but can't see how blustering and whataboutism constitutes one either.
It reminds me of that 80s board game Mastermind – just trial and error albeit with letters rather than coloured pegs.
Cryptic crosswords I love – I relish the lateral thinking – Wordle is just dull and procedural.
Realise I'm in a minority, but huh.
It's not just trial and error. Unlike Mastermind, you are only allowed certain combinations. That is, valid words. You aren't allowed to just guess AEIOU and go from there.
Not saying it's for everyone by any means, but IMO that makes it a little more interesting than Mastermind.
Yes, okay, I'll concede that point. It's slightly more interesting than Mastermind (although that is damning by faint praise).
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
No, I think BJ stays and BJ goes are about the same from a Labour POV. Johnson is the Tory's best campaigner as you say and has a proven ability to reach parts of the electorate his rivals can't. But, he has been severely compromised by current events. By contrast, replacing him now with someone credible like Sunak would give the Tories a bounce now but their ability to recover further might be more limited. To put it another way, I think the distribution of outcomes for the Tories under Johnson has a lower mean but fatter tails. The probability of staying in office after the next election might be more or less similar, but the chances of a huge defeat under Johnson are bigger and the average outcome is worse.
I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. ...
Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
The key weakness it exposes in our constitution is the lack of legitimacy of the position of the Monarch. This lack of legitimacy means that the Monarch is completely unable to execute its residual functions for fear of inserting itself on one side of a political controversy.
Instead the Monarch does only exactly as told by the PM, hoping that the PM has the sense of fair play that you mention and behaves as though the Monarch is capable of independent action.
This is why we need an elected President along the lines that Ireland has.
When was the last time the President of Ireland dismissed an Irish PM? Answer: Never.
The Irish President like our monarch is obliged to accept as Taisoeach whoever the Dail (Ireland's Parliament) designates as Irish PM without the right to refuse it
When was Mr Johnson the Taoiseach (NB spelling)? And when did a Taoiseach act like Mr J?
However the point remains that the Irish President like the UK Monarch bows to the will of Parliament in terms of who is PM. As longer as a majority of Parliament still gives confidence to the PM then the Irish President and UK Monarch has to accept that PM will stay in power.
The French President has the power to dismiss the French PM but then the French President is an elected party political President with significant powers, not a mere apolitical and ceremonial Head of State like the UK Monarch and Irish President
So the French system is different from ours? Fascinating. What I love about this place is that it's genuinely educational. And it's all done without a hint of condescension.
I don't think there's any condescension there. Just that HYUFD states the bleeding obvious in a manner exactly the same as when he shares his much more interesting insights.
I think a monarch is correctly executing their powers to dismiss the PM if they were to establish that an alternative government could be formed. ...
Our constitution does rely on the PM of the day having a sense of fair play and knowing when the game is up, for the most part.
The key weakness it exposes in our constitution is the lack of legitimacy of the position of the Monarch. This lack of legitimacy means that the Monarch is completely unable to execute its residual functions for fear of inserting itself on one side of a political controversy.
Instead the Monarch does only exactly as told by the PM, hoping that the PM has the sense of fair play that you mention and behaves as though the Monarch is capable of independent action.
This is why we need an elected President along the lines that Ireland has.
When was the last time the President of Ireland dismissed an Irish PM? Answer: Never.
The Irish President like our monarch is obliged to accept as Taisoeach whoever the Dail (Ireland's Parliament) designates as Irish PM without the right to refuse it
When was Mr Johnson the Taoiseach (NB spelling)? And when did a Taoiseach act like Mr J?
However the point remains that the Irish President like the UK Monarch bows to the will of Parliament in terms of who is PM. As longer as a majority of Parliament still gives confidence to the PM then the Irish President and UK Monarch has to accept that PM will stay in power.
The French President has the power to dismiss the French PM but then the French President is an elected party political President with significant powers, not a mere apolitical and ceremonial Head of State like the UK Monarch and Irish President
So the French system is different from ours? Fascinating. What I love about this place is that it's genuinely educational. And it's all done without a hint of condescension.
A post that you managed without a hint of condescension. Well done.
It can be explained away by Johnson being a weak coward who is incapable of saying 'no' to people he likes, or wants to like him; who runs away from difficult situations and who lies to avoid having to admit or deny something he'd rather not.
Anyone who has even a passing fondness for the integrity of our democracy SHOULD be scared of Boris Johnson. I feel no shame in admitting he frightens me.
Surely the Supreme Court will recognise this is a reasonable requirement of a 'well regulated militia', and in no way an infringement of Second Amendment rights ?
If Starmer could walk on water you'd be telling the world it was proof that Starmer couldn't swim.
He cant even tread water never mind walk on it
Like all lawyers they are not leaders
Blair and Attlee say hello.
So does Thatcher.
They are all dead or dead to me!
You should vote SKS though you have a lot in common
Both lawyers, both fiscal Conservatives, Both more in common with Tory Right Wing defectors than traditional Labour types.
Nah, Starmer and his party hate private schools, I could never vote Labour for that alone.
The private education allowed me, the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, to become the success I am.
Yep it is one of the issues that causes me to pause in my consideration of voting for them. I was educated in a pretty shitty comp but I was fortunate enough to privately educate my kids. Governments shouldn't be allowed to decide how people spend their money on their children IMO.
If Starmer could walk on water you'd be telling the world it was proof that Starmer couldn't swim.
He cant even tread water never mind walk on it
Like all lawyers they are not leaders
Blair and Attlee say hello.
So does Thatcher.
They are all dead or dead to me!
You should vote SKS though you have a lot in common
Both lawyers, both fiscal Conservatives, Both more in common with Tory Right Wing defectors than traditional Labour types.
Nah, Starmer and his party hate private schools, I could never vote Labour for that alone.
The private education allowed me, the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, to become the success I am.
Yep it is one of the issues that causes me to pause in my consideration of voting for them. I was educated in a pretty shitty comp but I was fortunate enough to privately educate my kids. Governments shouldn't be allowed to decide how people spend their money on their children IMO.
I agree and that's not Labour policy so you have nothing to worry about.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
I want him gone, yes, desperately, although my betting position is skewed to make bigger profits if he stays. But my point is that Starmer both wants him gone and at the same time isn't fussed if he clings on as damaged goods. I'm not saying he's deliberately trying to shape things to keep him there - that IS nonsense - I'm saying he's cool either way, hence his suave persona atm.
There is also that possibility that Starmer wants him to stay in place for a little while. He's certainly shown himself to be capable of more combative performances himself whenever he's wanted to over the last few months.
Yep. Starmer looked super relaxed and it's obvious why. He's toying with Johnson.
It struck me that Starmer is setting Johnson up for the post Gray fall. Johnson's retorts were totally contradictory to what the voters believe. As Johnson gets more confident that his far fetched defence is working he is becoming more ebullient. Presumably he also feels vindicated by his interpretation of the Gray report.
I think SKS views a legacy Con/BJ situation of "Unfit to be PM but party too cowardly to act" as a good base on which to build for the GE. He'd also be happy to see a Tory PM brought down by lies, sleaze & corruption. So, happy either way, hence his relaxed demeanour. This is my sense of things from his PoV.
And I think this is rubbish
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
And of course as with last and this week's PMQs, Boris realises that his magic doesn't lie in being contrite and behaving like a whipped dog in TV interviews it lies in rumbunctious displays of go fuck yourself at PMQs vs SKS.
I am a cussed sort of a person. I also value the rule of law. One of the reasons I really loathe this government is the way it is undermining it.
But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.
I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that - - legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed - there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law - the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.
It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.
My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.
There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.
What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.
Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.
But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.
Yes, the damage is done by his conduct, and his lying, both of which have caused his sharp decline in popularity. I have wondered whether that his potential exonneration in a strict legal sense may not help him; because people will simply conclude that the whole system is corrupt. It could well make matters worse than they are at present. By contrast, if he gets a 'ticket' from the Met, he may just be able to shrug it off and draw a line under the whole business.
I am not sure the wider lesson has been learned. These were astonishingly bad laws. More and more laws are just a heap of rubbish. All the principles built up over the 20th Century, and the safeguards built up within administrative state to prevent bad laws from seeing the light of day, have been junked. The rot goes back many decades, but this is about as bad as it has ever been. Nothing has been learned from the Dangerous Dogs Act.
I wonder if Sir Keir was feeling the pressure there - like a spin bowler on a turning pitch on the last day of a test match with all your team expecting you to secure the victory. What would it do to Labour morale if Boris somehow brazened it out and then the polls started to narrow in the coming months? Would they forgive Sir Keir for having Boris's destruction in the palm of his hand and then dropping it?
I don't think this reflects the situation. Johnson's fate is in the hands of Tory MPs. Labour morale depends on the polls, yes, but that's regardless of who the Con leader is.
Comments
But it is precisely because I do value it that I am getting weary with the amount of rubbish written about the criminality of these parties by people who won't do the one thing which is necessary, which is to look at the bloody rules first and understand what the offences are. In May 2020 there was no crime of eating a birthday cake in the office, for instance.
I remember making the point over and over again, tediously no doubt, both below and above the line, that -
- legislating in a rush with no or little scrutiny is a very bad thing indeed
- there is a critical difference between guidelines and the law
- the police and government really needed to understand this difference because otherwise unfairness to individuals and businesses would result.
It applied then when officious power mad policemen and officials overstepped the mark with individuals. And, unpopular as this view may now seem, it applies now to the PM and the civil servants in Whitehall. They may well have broken the rules but until we know the facts - and with luck those facts will be clearly set out in the Gray report - it is not possible to say with the certainty that so many are saying this.
This - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit - from barrister, Adam Wagner, is an invaluable resource if you want to know what the law actually was and therefore what breaches may or may not have been committed.
My best guess is that some of the more eye catching events may not have been breaches at all by some of the more prominent attendees, that others (Mrs Johnson and her friends, for instance) may well have committed more breaches than the PM, that quite a few civil servants may have committed breaches but that a fair number will have pretty good defences and that it may be harder than it seems to make a case against others.
There will also be lots of questions which ought to be asked - but won't be - about why so many people remained silent and did not speak up. This is a very important part of having a good culture but will be ignored in the froth. It shouldn't be.
What remains uncertain is whether there is evidence of accessory offences eg misconduct in public office, aiding and abetting, conspiracy etc. These are much harder to prove of course.
Finally, much of this will not matter politically. Partly because this plays into other well-founded concerns about the PM and, much more importantly, because he has not been honest about what has happened and his own responsibility. This is what ought to kill him - politically.
But his fundamental lack of honesty and responsibility have been golden threads throughout his career. They have not been deal breakers for his party or voters. Maybe they will now. It would make a pleasant change. I am not holding my breath.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1486321078104428549
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1486313695210872832
No 10 repeatedly denied the claim the PM authorised the evacuation of Nowzad charity's staff/animals from Kabul.
But FCDO official states explicitly that he did, in private correspondence just released by @CommonsForeign https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1486321117015027716/photo/1
So does Thatcher.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/20/ireland.
However the point remains that the Irish President like the UK Monarch bows to the will of Parliament in terms of who is PM. As longer as a majority of Parliament still gives confidence to the PM then the Irish President and UK Monarch has to accept that PM will stay in power.
The French President has the power to dismiss the French PM but then the French President is an elected party political President with significant powers, not a mere apolitical and ceremonial Head of State like the UK Monarch and Irish President
https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1486321679206912001
You'll need to take your flaked Parmesan custom elsewhere.
Johnson, otoh, is a vacuous braying lump of privilege.
Anybody who goes for that is mean of spirit and soft of head.
Also looks as if BJ has been nailed lying over Nowzad, but I don't think he lied in the House about that.
I was reminded somewhat of Thatchers VONC performance in 1990 today. Not because Boris had full mastery of the brief (he never will) or that he cut an imperious figure (he didn’t). But he was combative, fired up and dismissive. It gave his MPs cheer, from what I could see. And cheer in MPs is the sort of thing that doesn’t lead to successful leadership changes (obviously for Maggie it came too late at that point).
Deep down, Labourites like you (and many others) still fear Boris, profoundly. Sure, he's massively unpopular now, but he's been in the dog house before, and returned. Boris remains probably the best campaigner in British politics (until we see evidence otherwise).
You want him gone, ASAP, just in case his magic returns. You do not fear any of his rivals; you may have wariness of Sunak but that is all, it is not deep. You are still scared of Boris
It reminds me of that 80s board game Mastermind – just trial and error albeit with letters rather than coloured pegs.
Cryptic crosswords I love – I relish the lateral thinking – Wordle is just dull and procedural.
Realise I'm in a minority, but huh.
Plus John Howard and Gerhard Schroder and Olaf Scholz.
You should vote SKS though you have a lot in common
Both lawyers, both fiscal Conservatives, Both more in common with Tory Right Wing defectors than traditional Labour types.
You could imagine a scenario where a Labour PM was reliant on the Lib Dems for a majority, lost their support, but was able to form a new majority by doing a deal with the SNP.
The key missing link is for the Commons to have a way of indicating whether they do have confidence in anyone else, so that person can take over.
BJO is over the "never kissed a Tory" vein of thought.
Attlee married one.
Has Gray pulled her bloody finger out yet?
"Did the Prime Minister agree to the Chancellor writing off £4.3 billion of fraud?"
Boris Johnson: "No of course not Mr Speaker"
Not saying it's for everyone by any means, but IMO that makes it a little more interesting than Mastermind.
However that does not blind me to the motivations of the various actors here. Labour are still frit of Boris, in a way they are not frit of anyone else in the Tory party. They would breathe an intense sigh of relief if he departed. So don't listen to anyone on the Left who says "we spared him so he could limp on and damage the Tories blah blah"
It's patent nonsense
Captain Hindight is shitty
Vote Mr Thicky
The key question was "Keir Starmer asks if Johnson thinks the part of the ministerial code saying that ministers who knowingly mislead parliament must resign applies to him". I wonder if someone has tipped off Labour about the conclusions of the report...
The PM made the final decision but there was extensive lobbying on his behalf as well as numerous appearances on various news shows.
The media bears a fair share of responsibility over outrageous decision to prioritise stray dogs and cats over brown people.
A Labour leader who worked alongside the Tories for five years.
https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/2253199/china-gives-fight-club-new-ending-where-authorities-win
Liz Truss was doing her bulldog Britain impression on the Today program today. Quite an interesting interview about how difficult it is to have a sensible policy on Ukraine. Once she got beyond her headlines Truss was wobbling a bit. But then, with an almost audible sigh, Martha turned to the parties once again. Her heart really wasn’t in it and it frankly sounded absurd juxtaposed to the first part of the conversation.
The private education allowed me, the grandson of humble immigrants to this country, to become the success I am.
Whereas with someone like Sunak it would be odds on either a tiny Tory majority or hung parliament. Very hard to see a Labour majority vs Sunak imo.
Tim White
@TWMCLtd
·
1h
More and more #Covid19 case records in Europe:
#Austria 34,011 (+23%); 11 more deaths
#Estonia 5,845 new cases (+85%); 5 dead
#Hungary hits 20k for the first time, 20,174 cases (+35%); 69 died
#Lithuania 9,490 (+52%); 12
#Poland 53,420 (+75%); 276
#Slovenia 17,491 (+42%); 12
https://twitter.com/TWMCLtd/status/1486308929588146177?s=20
SKS not so much
Blair was a winner
SKS not so much
To put it another way, I think the distribution of outcomes for the Tories under Johnson has a lower mean but fatter tails. The probability of staying in office after the next election might be more or less similar, but the chances of a huge defeat under Johnson are bigger and the average outcome is worse.
Just that HYUFD states the bleeding obvious in a manner exactly the same as when he shares his much more interesting insights.
NEW THREAD
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/591391-san-jose-instituting-nations-first-gun-ownership-requirements
Surely the Supreme Court will recognise this is a reasonable requirement of a 'well regulated militia', and in no way an infringement of Second Amendment rights ?
There is currently an animal sanctuary in Kabul run by Americans.
Thank god for Omicron?
I am not sure the wider lesson has been learned. These were astonishingly bad laws. More and more laws are just a heap of rubbish. All the principles built up over the 20th Century, and the safeguards built up within administrative state to prevent bad laws from seeing the light of day, have been junked. The rot goes back many decades, but this is about as bad as it has ever been. Nothing has been learned from the Dangerous Dogs Act.