Categories
Johnson NOT being fined would be the worst Tory outcome – politicalbetting.com
Johnson NOT being fined would be the worst Tory outcome – politicalbetting.com
The next big question in “partygate” is whether the prime minister will actually face fixed penalty fines by the police for lockdown violations.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The worst scenario is Boris not being fined (because technicalities) while other people are fined.
Either way the longer Boris stays in power the more damage it does to the Tory party as he damages its reputation slowly and surely....
In other news 5 year bonds are now above 1.5% so that means fixed mortgage rates are going higher.
Perhaps Starmer and Mandelson are more concerned with bringing down Jeremy Corbyn than Boris Johnson.
If he is a liability though, then OGH is quite right and we have an unfortunate position where the interests of Boris Johnson and The Conservative Party are completely opposed.
On more serious matters, any reports of Russian troops pulling back need to be treated with extreme caution until they are independently verified by Western security services. An invasion justified on the back of "Western aggression" despite serious Russian gestures of goodwill would be a very Putin play, I'd have thought.
Basically for every @bigjohnowls there are 3+ centre of the road voters who need to know the more extreme left won't get control before they can safely return to voting Labour.
And at the moment keeping Bozo in power is better for Labour than a competent Tory leader
If he's not fined, because he's not broken the law, then that would be strange given all the reporting that has happened - but if he's not actually broken the law then he's not broken the rules. But I expect he will be and surely being fined and then kept on is the worst case scenario?
If the PM was clocked going at 81mph on the motorway I genuinely wouldn't know how much of one there would be or even if there would be an outcry.
Bl**dy idiot is what people might say and also there but for the grace of god...
And yes he did make the lockdown rules; he also made the speeding rules.
This is easy for Slippy Boris to deal with.
If he is not fined he says, "I understand the rules were confusing. It is wrong for anyone to be fined. There is an amnesty. And you get double your fines back, if not fully satisfied."
Much cheering and a few excitable Tory back-benchers shout of "A Freedom Loving People".
Not repealing existing laws is not the same thing as introducing new ones. If there had never been a speed limit, then Boris introduced it, then that would be comparable, not having existing laws already being there.
If he returns to the tactics that kept dividing his supporters last year, up to and including the party conference, I predict a returning press narrative of "Labour Splits", and quite possibly defeat at the next general election.
You can be fined for driving dangerously. Acceptance of a fine (or caution) is acceptance of an offence. I think it is very unlikely Boris will be fined, although I accept that Mike is probably talking about an FPN. It is possible he could be fined if he does not accept the FPN.
Breaking your own rules that you foist upon others is simply worse than breaking pre-existing rules that society is used to and socially accepts that they get broken from time to time like speeding.
The only way the speeding analogy could work is if say a German Chancellor against opposition enforced a speed-limit on the Autobahn where previously there was none, then broke it personally.
Those who want to keep him will say he hadn't broken the law but will have to accept that he has been fined for something; those who want him out will say he has been fined but will have to accept that he didn't break the law.
No fine
Small fine
£10,000 fine
Triggers VONC
Doesn't trigger VONC
I mean a £10k will trigger a VONC (if anything does), but he might win it, so no fine might be worse for Boris, or maybe not. It's hurting my head.
Drinking 22 units of alcohol in a week in your living room is against government guidance, the guidance limit for a week for a male is 21 units.
Drinking 22 units of alcohol in a night in the pub then driving home is against the law.
Only the latter is a breach of the rules. Even if some people chose to treat "guidance" as rules, it never was, and never has been.
Whatever, Boris is a very naughty boy who deserves to be punished.
So if he *isn't* find then it screams whitewash. And punters tend not to like being told that what they know, have seen, have experienced is wrong. Especially when its done in a tone-deaf way by politicians.
But to break a law you've imposed on others, that is definitely far, far worse. Which means the inverse is clearly less bad.
Politically, after all the doom-laden propaganda we say over the relevant period, it isn't.
The law is the rule, the guidance is not.
Always was the case. You broke no rules cycling 3x per day.
Hypocrisy being an issue to take objection to is not just something that exists in my head. I find it odd you can't wrap your head around the hypocrisy of a PM introducing then breaking his own law - but I suspect you can and are just playing Devils Advocate.
It's often forgotten, despite my reminders, that Blair neutered the left without expelling them. Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott and many others moaned discontentedly on the backbenches throughout the Blair years, but nobody thought they had any say in policy or practice.
Indeed Sue Gray's report should provide detailed information on that outrage
It started with outright denial; we're now in the middle of a contest to lower the hurdle that Boris has to clear to stay as PM.
Currently ankle height.
There's a reason that the Tories are swift to expel the far right if any of those types end up in the party. Labour should do the same to the far left, who are just as unacceptable.
Partly because of his very differing style, It seems to be taken for granted by many people that his leadership won't be Corbyn's. If I was him, judging by very consistent polling evidence of the last 18 months, in terms of public statements and public gestures about Labour internal politics, I would leave it very carefully at that.
There is no point judging the PM by the results of a flawed police process when we all already know what has happened.
If Corbyn is not standing in Islington North for Labour as is rumoured, that is a few voters right there.
Starmer is shrewd and I think underestimated, I've said that since day one to much ridicule here.
Back in the real world, Starmer announced this policy literally whilst he was running for leader.
Brexit as an argument is over - if this is what the Tories wish to fight then Labour will win in a landslide. Out of ideas, out of touch. Time to go.
Whereas PM having a sneaky fag when the guidance is that you shouldn't smoke may be politically an issue but it isn't breaking the rules.
Bring back the bunnies: Lee, Yoon grapple with revolt of stronghold voters
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/02/356_323830.html
...The rabbit metaphor comes from an old Korean adage: "You can lose your pet rabbits if you're out looking for wild rabbits." The wisdom warns of an endangered opportunity cost, encouraging people to take good care of what they already have, and only then seek others that can give you extra benefit.
In most elections, both the conservative and liberal parties have similar portions of bunnies among the entire voting population. Therefore, the recipe for winning boils down to the consolidation of votes from bunnies with extra support from wild rabbits sufficient enough to turn the election in their favor.
The March 9 presidential election is exceptional...
After the fiasco of Brexit I shouldn't think they would want us back in a hurry and if they did it would certainly be on worse terms than we enjoyed previously.
Ain't happening. It's over. Forget about it.
Our rulers did not think that even the guidelines applied to them. I find this just as appalling as selective lawbreaking.
If he is fined and found to have broken the law to the extent he is fined for it it will also be very difficult for him to stay in office as lead lawmaker
This comes down to two things: "criminality" (I realise that's not quite accurate in the context of PCNs but it's how the public see "breaking the law") and misleading Parliament. I don't think there's any significant doubt that the Tory party would tolerate and justify criminality if they thought the PM was their best route to retain power despite the criminality. I'm less sure that they will be prepared to line up behind the principle that it's OK for the PM to lie to Parliament to get himself out of trouble.
If the Conservative and Unionist Party ever recovers from their takeover by parasitic Brexiteers they will propose "ever closer ties with our closest and largest trading partners" to avoid being the sick man of Europe. Again.
Getting off on a technicality would make it harder to draw a line under the affair.
People don't like being poorer than they have to be, though. If the EU still exists in 25 years, I think it is highly likely we will be a member.
If he's not fined then they have to say that the police have decided he did nothing wrong - but more of the public would find that more difficult to accept than the former argument. There would be a feeling that natural justice had been denied. There would be a greater impetus for dethroning Johnson to achieve that justice.
It was Thatcher who stopped us being the sick man of Europe, not being in the EEC/EU.
In 20 to 30 years if immigration is under control and a Labour government has aligned more closely to the EEA then a future Tory government might accept that but the Tories will never propose rejoining the full EU again
126. The collective effect of the conclusions set out during this judgment is that the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety. The claim by the Runnymede Trust fails on Grounds 1 and 3; it succeeds on Ground 2 only to the extent that the decisions on the process to be used when appointing to the positions of Interim Chair of NIHP in August 2020, and Director of Testing at NHSTT in September 2020 were made without compliance with the public sector equality duty.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Queen-on-the-application-of-1-Good-Law-Project-2-Runnymede-Trust-v-1-Prime-Minister-SSHSC-judgment.pdf
I think it's very possible Britain will be out of the EU but back in the single market in a few years.
If he is fined by definition he has broken the law, and in that circumstance his mps have to decide their future though IDS said over the weekend Boris would have to resign if fined
The speaker should have forced the commons to vote via STV in the meaningful votes, thereby discovering which outcome the Commons disliked the least & allowing things to move forward with a full vote in the Commons for that option afterwards.
From Starmer's POV this is all about future-proofing the General Election campaign and preventing Boris from exploiting fears about a referendum re-run.
If we accept that Boris may hang on, then the biggest threat to the opposition is their respective leaders' extraordinary lack of personality or oomph. Major was facing Blair and Ashdown. What a contrast with Starmer and thingummy. This personality issue matters - look how Theresa May threw away her apparently unassailable poll lead in 2017.
Equally, Brexiteer intransigence & unwillingness to understand EU red lines is /also/ what got us where we are today. Euro die hards and mad Brexiteers holding hands across the aisle: a love song for the ages.
Which naturally leads us to speculate why they were introduced.
In my view Johnson created the rules to make it look like the government cared. Pandering to the bleeding hearts, etc. And then there was added corruption, a pandemic is like a war, no expense spared government contracts, money to be syphoned off to your mates. No respect for the rule of law.
They knowingly chose this choice. It makes the Conservative Party (but not their voters) an enemy within. They need to get their house in order.
Depressing stuff.
1. Move to Scotland and claim Scottish nationality (which at the moment isn't a thing)
2. Pray for, campaign for and vote for Scottish independence
3. Pray for, campaign for and vote for Scotland to join the EU
Could be a tortuous wait
Despite what you say, I struggle to think of any Labour (or Lib Dem for that matter) supporter on here who thinks that 'rejoin' should be in their manifesto for the next election. If there are any, they are few in number. Indeed, I think the strongest anti-Brexit rhetoric on this forum comes from a couple of disillusioned Tory supporters.
A link for then day.
Quite a strong speech by Guy Verhofstadt, suggesting amongst other things activating the EU equivalent of NATO's Article 5. That is, Article 42 of the Maastricht Treaty.
https://www.facebook.com/100044392570724/posts/497892415033840/?d=n
In answer to the question: probably not, unless a vote was taken beforehand by Parliament itself to approve of the procedure? That would be my guess.