Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
As entertaining as the pinhead dancing is, shall we split it down the middle?
It was illegal to gather indoors if not for essential work. The Met decreed this was not work, thus the fines. Whether it was a party or not, the presence of a birthday cake and singing of Happy Birthday was the evidence taken into consideration that this was not work.
Don't think said pinhead dancing will wash with the public should he try to defend the party sorry non-work gathering with cake and singing.
Isn't that just what I've been saying?
It wasn't a party, but its still illegal and he should still go.
It didn't take much to break the law during lockdown which is because of how draconian the restrictions were - and the PM and his Cabinet and Parliament passed those draconian restrictions then broke them. That is enough for them to have to go, even if no actual parties were known about and no lies to Parliament were told.
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
An obligation is only an obligation insofar as it is enforceable. SFAICS no-one has the power the enforce this one. So, in the modern world, an obligation it is not. The only power with leverage is that possessed by Tory MPs to force a VONC among the Tory MPs, and the power of the opposition to force a VONC in the House of Commons.
Good luck with both of those.
PS Truss will not be the next leader.
The only wildcard is probably Wallace. If Boris goes there will be pressure for a non-extended leadership contest and the only person who is ready to step into the breach as a holder of a GOOS is, I am afraid to say, Liz Truss.
Who else is there? Patel isn’t going to get it. Rishi is done. Tugenhadt isn’t even a minister. Mordaunt might be a good leader in opposition but has limited cabinet experience. Anyone like Mogg or Dorries is too bonkers even for the Tory party.
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
God almighty can the BBC stop asking Michael Fabricant for a reaction on Partygate. It's like all those chat shoes who booked Oliver Reed knowing he'd turn up drunk and cause an amusing scene. Also doesn't do anything for the national blood pressure.
Rishi may well do. He knows he is not going to become PM - that has not changed as a result of the fine - and he will be off back to business at GE 2024.
Boris MAY think about his own prospects in due course before the next GE. Per the expected boundary changes he needs to 'GAIN' his own seat. He may seek an alternative seat or may decide that 'ok time for a new leader for the election' but this won't happen for a while. Or he may stay to fight the GE.
In the meantime Starmer will remain an uninspiring wooden ideas-free option going forward and into the next GE. And the LAB team immediately behind Starmer and in the parliamentary party won't change.
Russian invading Finland surely is the start of WWIII?
No, that would be Russia invading the Baltic States, Norway or Poland which already are in NATO
Finland will be joining NATO very soon, maybe in weeks but certainly months, so the question will soon be irrelevant.
Btw, I agree with you that Boris is unlikely to resign. Personally I'm not sure he should. It's the wrong time, there's no obvious replacement, and Labour is still convalescing.
Labour will of course be very happy for him to stay on, but that's a different matter. Maybe if the Locals are truly dreadful things may change, and I do think there is a fair chance of this happening.
But for the moment, I don't see Boris getting off the pot.
Of all you right of centre posters on here, which always feels to me like a tidal surge, is there any one of you who does not think the Prime Minister should now resign?
Depends what the polls say over the next week. If he keeps the Labour lead under 10% he can stay
For an alleged Christian you have a remarkably transactional approach to the notion of right and wrong.
Christianity is based on forgiveness as much as Old Testament condemnation, provided the perpetrator shows remorse
Trouble is that Mr Johnson, as with the ethics arrangements in HMG, is de facto boss of the extramural ethics dept aka the C of E.
Mr Johnson is a Roman Catholic not C of E
Had someone told him about the selling of indulgences ?
Sarah Jane Mee of Sky has said that the response to them from the public is evenly split on Boris resigning
The precedent Mr Johnson sets if he does not resign for misleading Parliament which is now the key charge, and proven if the fines are accepted and not challenged, is outrageous. It allows any Minister or future Prime Minister can tell any old bollocks to Parliament without fear of the ultimate sanction.
I don't believe Mr Sunak has made that same grave error of misleading the House, nonetheless he now has a moral duty to go too. That would also put Mr Johnson under greater pressure. I wonder whether the removal vans at No 11 pre-empted his departure on the grounds of Partygate?
The Ministerial Code, Parliament and the Office of Prime Minister will be in disrepute if Johnson stays.
[Angus Deayton voice:]
So no change there, then.
Seriously- since Summer 2019, BoJo has been gently boiling that frog perfectly until there is nothing left but frog soup.
I would like to think that PB doesn't end up as Frog Soup.
I have just emailed my MP under the header 'Good Parenting'. I have asked her what I should have told my children when they were growing up. Should I have said "It's OK to lie - as long as you think you can get away with it."
As Sir Humphrey had it, you should always be honest…….. about things people can easily find out through another route.
Russian invading Finland surely is the start of WWIII?
No, that would be Russia invading the Baltic States, Norway or Poland which already are in NATO
Finland will be joining NATO very soon, maybe in weeks but certainly months, so the question will soon be irrelevant.
Btw, I agree with you that Boris is unlikely to resign. Personally I'm not sure he should. It's the wrong time, there's no obvious replacement, and Labour is still convalescing.
Labour will of course be very happy for him to stay on, but that's a different matter. Maybe if the Locals are truly dreadful things may change, and I do think there is a fair chance of this happening.
But for the moment, I don't see Boris getting off the pot.
Only if Finland makes a formal request and Putin has then not invaded Finland before it formally joins NATO
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
Sarah Jane Mee of Sky has said that the response to them from the public is evenly split on Boris resigning
The precedent Mr Johnson sets if he does not resign for misleading Parliament which is now the key charge, and proven if the fines are accepted and not challenged, is outrageous. It allows any Minister or future Prime Minister can tell any old bollocks to Parliament without fear of the ultimate sanction.
I don't believe Mr Sunak has made that same grave error of misleading the House, nonetheless he now has a moral duty to go too. That would also put Mr Johnson under greater pressure. I wonder whether the removal vans at No 11 pre-empted his departure on the grounds of Partygate?
The Ministerial Code, Parliament and the Office of Prime Minister will be in disrepute if Johnson stays.
Tony Blair
Blair wasn't "busted" over the 24 hour WMDs issue until after he left office as I recall. Once the guilt was nailed on he should have gone too. No ifs no buts.
Yes. I don't normally involve myself in disputes between other posters, but that is quite exceptional dickheadery.
"FTFY" is venerable internet practice, especially in cases when a troll is trolling. Being honest is like being a lady or being powerful - if you have to say that you are, you aren't.
Roger Gale, one of Boris's principal critics, has said that now is not the moment as we deal with Ukraine and the refugee crisis bit I do not think the PM will lead us into the next election
And here's your regular reminder that the UK changed PMs on the day Bucharest fell to the Kaiser, and the day Hitler invaded France (as well as while forces massed for the first Gulf War).
Without wishing to diminish the importance of the war in Ukraine and Britain's role as a (significant) non-combatant, the idea from Tory MPs that we can't possibly change PMs now is as ignorant of history as it is utterly spineless.
I have reluctantly concluded that if Johnson was the one who was just convicted of molesting a 15 year old he would probably ride it out
Rees-Mogg would lament the tragic leading astray of a great man by a wayward teen; Blunt would call it the worst miscarriage of justice since Pontius Pilate; Dorries would say she has proof that he far prefers women of a certain age; and Fabricant would say that the safest place for the PM to be was in Number 10 rather than hanging around the school gates in retirement.
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
An obligation is only an obligation insofar as it is enforceable. SFAICS no-one has the power the enforce this one. So, in the modern world, an obligation it is not. The only power with leverage is that possessed by Tory MPs to force a VONC among the Tory MPs, and the power of the opposition to force a VONC in the House of Commons.
Good luck with both of those.
PS Truss will not be the next leader.
The only wildcard is probably Wallace. If Boris goes there will be pressure for a non-extended leadership contest and the only person who is ready to step into the breach as a holder of a GOOS is, I am afraid to say, Liz Truss.
Who else is there? Patel isn’t going to get it. Rishi is done. Tugenhadt isn’t even a minister. Mordaunt might be a good leader in opposition but has limited cabinet experience. Anyone like Mogg or Dorries is too bonkers even for the Tory party.
Gove.
Raab is possible too in that sort of context.
I think the Tories will be happy enough to have a normal length leadership contest after the locals though. The rules do make such things reasonably swift.
I'd not be surprised to see a nearly complete unknown run.
I can't see Boris resigning now (unless there's some additional facts revealed), nor can I see the party ousting him before the locals, as it's better to wait until after.
Sarah Jane Mee of Sky has said that the response to them from the public is evenly split on Boris resigning
The precedent Mr Johnson sets if he does not resign for misleading Parliament which is now the key charge, and proven if the fines are accepted and not challenged, is outrageous. It allows any Minister or future Prime Minister can tell any old bollocks to Parliament without fear of the ultimate sanction.
I don't believe Mr Sunak has made that same grave error of misleading the House, nonetheless he now has a moral duty to go too. That would also put Mr Johnson under greater pressure. I wonder whether the removal vans at No 11 pre-empted his departure on the grounds of Partygate?
The Ministerial Code, Parliament and the Office of Prime Minister will be in disrepute if Johnson stays.
[Angus Deayton voice:]
So no change there, then.
Seriously- since Summer 2019, BoJo has been gently boiling that frog perfectly until there is nothing left but frog soup.
I would like to think that PB doesn't end up as Frog Soup.
There are certainly some rather oddly shaped bones lurking in the murky sediment at the bottom of the PB discourse.
Rishi may well do. He knows he is not going to become PM - that has not changed as a result of the fine - and he will be off back to business at GE 2024.
Boris MAY think about his own prospects in due course before the next GE. Per the expected boundary changes he needs to 'GAIN' his own seat. He may seek an alternative seat or may decide that 'ok time for a new leader for the election' but this won't happen for a while. Or he may stay to fight the GE.
In the meantime Starmer will remain an uninspiring wooden ideas-free option going forward and into the next GE. And the LAB team immediately behind Starmer and in the parliamentary party won't change.
It's not party time for LAB yet!
I expect he won't be forced out as you suggest. Parking Starmer and Labour aside do you think that wilfully lying to parliament is a resignation offence?
God almighty can the BBC stop asking Michael Fabricant for a reaction on Partygate. It's like all those chat shoes who booked Oliver Reed knowing he'd turn up drunk and cause an amusing scene. Also doesn't do anything for the national blood pressure.
Fabricant and Swayne are 2 of a kind in this respect, they remind me of Hinge and Brackett!
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
Exactly!
We are all in violent agreement, in varying degrees. (I confess to misinterpreting your initial comment - and I wholly agree with you.)
Russian invading Finland surely is the start of WWIII?
No, that would be Russia invading the Baltic States, Norway or Poland which already are in NATO
Finland will be joining NATO very soon, maybe in weeks but certainly months, so the question will soon be irrelevant.
Btw, I agree with you that Boris is unlikely to resign. Personally I'm not sure he should. It's the wrong time, there's no obvious replacement, and Labour is still convalescing.
Labour will of course be very happy for him to stay on, but that's a different matter. Maybe if the Locals are truly dreadful things may change, and I do think there is a fair chance of this happening.
But for the moment, I don't see Boris getting off the pot.
Only if Finland makes a formal request and Putin has then not invaded Finland before it formally joins NATO
That you won't address the issue of the day is painfully funny.
Possibly PM Wallace or Javid or Truss by the end of the summer if true.
Though depends on how bad the polling and local election losses turn out to be for the Tories as to whether Johnson and Sunak survive
What if Sunak just resigned over this, presuming he did would that not totally undermine Johnson.
I also think Truss would doom you to a rout in 2024.
I think that’s what the last 2 weeks have been about.
Just imagine if Rishi had said 2 weeks ago “I will resign if I get a FPN”
Now if he resigns it’s not “principled chancellor resigns, apologies for mistake, how long can Boris hang on”, it’s “tarnished chancellor resigns in shame and flees to California”
Roger Gale, one of Boris's principal critics, has said that now is not the moment as we deal with Ukraine and the refugee crisis bit I do not think the PM will lead us into the next election
And here's your regular reminder that the UK changed PMs on the day Bucharest fell to the Kaiser, and the day Hitler invaded France (as well as while forces massed for the first Gulf War).
Without wishing to diminish the importance of the war in Ukraine and Britain's role as a (significant) non-combatant, the idea from Tory MPs that we can't possibly change PMs now is as ignorant of history as it is utterly spineless.
I have reluctantly concluded that if Johnson was the one who was just convicted of molesting a 15 year old he would probably ride it out
Rees-Mogg would lament the tragic leading astray of a great man by a wayward teen; Blunt would call it the worst miscarriage of justice since Pontius Pilate; Dorries would say she has proof that he far prefers women of a certain age; and Fabricant would say that the safest place for the PM to be was in Number 10 rather than hanging around the school gates in retirement.
And Mark Francois and Andrew Bridgen would grunt inarticulately.
Truss is just a fag paper away from hiring Annie Leibowitz to do a special on her (or more likely trying to get it done on the public's dollar).
She’s a white bonnet away from full handmaid’s tale….
What depressing kneejerk reactions. Truss was styled by the fashion lecturer who put on the exhibition:
Sophie photographed Elizabeth in her constituency, close to where she grew up and began her photography. The all-female team shot on location at Hockwold Hall, which also has a direct link to the suffragettes. Alongside photographing, Sophie also styled Elizabeth, using clothing from local graduate designers and stores. The final portrait features a dress created by Norwich University of the Arts graduate Kate Illingsworth. https://www.wsc.ac.uk/about-the-college/news/4819-college-lecturer-photographs-liz-truss-for-209-women-initiative
There are some enthusiastic Tory fluffers on here but for day in, day out assiduous defence of small and large C conservatism, you are the nonpareil. I salute you.
A complete circumlocution, rather than addressing the point.
Russian invading Finland surely is the start of WWIII?
No, that would be Russia invading the Baltic States, Norway or Poland which already are in NATO
Russia invading Finland would be WW111 at that moment and you really do not understand geopolitical politics at all
It isn't going to happen, because Russia has no idea whether NATO would treat it as an attack (I think it would) but if it did it would be a fascinating moment in the glorious military history of the EU.
Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.
The Tory party, have no shame, there is no way in my opinion, that enough of them, will grow a backbone and submit letters to the 1922 chairman, the unprincipled liar, is here to stay, the only way to get rid is a general election, and even then I'm not sure it will happen, especially when you see such nonsense spouted on here about his success with Brexit, Brexit is an ongoing disaster, as for Ukraine, what the hell has he done any different than any other leader would have done, as for Covid, the billions that was wasted on track and trace, and the scandal off the ppe contracts handed out to their cronies, the liar should definitely go, but he wont
Of all you right of centre posters on here, which always feels to me like a tidal surge, is there any one of you who does not think the Prime Minister should now resign?
Depends what the polls say over the next week. If he keeps the Labour lead under 10% he can stay
For an alleged Christian you have a remarkably transactional approach to the notion of right and wrong.
Christianity is based on forgiveness as much as Old Testament condemnation, provided the perpetrator shows remorse
If Mr Khan shows remorse does he deserve to avoid a custodial sentence and retain his seat in Parliament?
God almighty can the BBC stop asking Michael Fabricant for a reaction on Partygate. It's like all those chat shoes who booked Oliver Reed knowing he'd turn up drunk and cause an amusing scene. Also doesn't do anything for the national blood pressure.
Fabricant and Swayne are 2 of a kind in this respect, they remind me of Hinge and Brackett!
Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
I was about to post a theory along these lines so good to see it confirmed via sources.
The only way Boris goes is via a coronation, and the ONLY candidate who could achieve that in the near term (3-6 months) is Liz Truss.
Much as I think she is an over-promoted Johnson “lite”, she does have the ability to present as an uncontaminated new start.
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?
Neither. There are no popes in science.
However, as non-specialists, we should probably weight the peer reviewed journal higher than what people "reckon" on "the digital magazine of ideas, culture and opinion", as we interrogate the topic and draw our own conclusion.
Boris has been an excellent PM in the round, he has handled the biggest issues (Ukraine, Covid, Brexit) extremely well.
But lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
As an analogy, its like an excellent employee who hits all the KPIs who goes on a bender and attacks a colleague - it is gross misconduct, they have to go, even if they've been hitting their KPIs.
I think that was my example. Employee is highly regarded, beats all KPIs at appraisal time then accidently punches the boss at a work dinner. Doesn't matter how highly you perform you're getting the sack and you're out the door with no notice and not even your bus fare home.
He has to go. How can HY defend this?
How can you “accidentally punch” the boss?
If you weee aiming for someone else you should resign regardless
Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.
If Johnson rides out the next week, the next Parliament is his, unless the electorate decide otherwise.
Parliament must now be recalled so Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak can give their resignation statements, and MPs can hold this Tory government to account.
Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.
I'm wondering if Javid is back in play and worth backing now? I know he's had his own non-dom issues, but he's lanced the boil whilst attention was elsewhere.
I remain convinced that, if the Tories change leader before an election (a fairly big "if") it'll be for someone who is, or was until fairly recently, the holder of one of the great offices of state as it's a big punt choosing a PM (as opposed to LOTO) from outside that group. So I'm highly sceptical about Tugenhat, Mordaunt, and Wallace. Patel isn't a contender, Sunak has lost it completely and I can't see a route back in the medium term. The field is narrowing and Javid is beginning to look quite plausible to me.
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?
Whilst at the same time, denying - in Parliament - you had broken that law you insisted everyone else follow. Where there is along-standing convention that if you lie, you depart. Is what is toxic.
Of all you right of centre posters on here, which always feels to me like a tidal surge, is there any one of you who does not think the Prime Minister should now resign?
Depends what the polls say over the next week. If he keeps the Labour lead under 10% he can stay
For an alleged Christian you have a remarkably transactional approach to the notion of right and wrong.
Christianity is based on forgiveness as much as Old Testament condemnation, provided the perpetrator shows remorse
Trouble is that Mr Johnson, as with the ethics arrangements in HMG, is de facto boss of the extramural ethics dept aka the C of E.
Mr Johnson is a Roman Catholic not C of E
In real life he is an atheist who is only a member of any church for image reasons.
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?
Yawn. The Nature piece is politics not science, and is a bunch of scientists whining that nobody realises how important they are.
It is certainly fair to say that the article has more to do with commentary than science. It feels out of place in Nature and is more suited to a more narrative journal.
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.
Boris Johnson did a fine thing when he walked through the streets of Kyiv with President Zelensky. It was a brave thing to do and the right thing to do. Clearly, it was also very much a one-off.
I would not be surprised if he tried to get someone else to pay the fine for him.
From the Staggers, unpaywalled. It’s worth a read in full:
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.
But since 2019, the Conservative Party has essentially been the Boris Cheerleading Corps; pretty much anyone showing a scintilla of independence of thought has either jumped or been pushed out.
And a lack of viable alternatives is excellent news for any incumbent more interested in their status than doing a good job. Mayor Boris could appoint competent "Deputies", becuase they weren't really deputies- they were never rivals for his position. PM Boris couldn't appoint the best ministers, becuase they might become a threat.
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.
maybe he will, the fates have not looked kindly on his period in office. he's had pestilence and war best leg it before famine and death get going.
Parliament must now be recalled so Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak can give their resignation statements, and MPs can hold this Tory government to account.
Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.
Labour did it with Corbyn....
In al fairness, Labour did at least have 2-3 half-arsed attempts at ditching Corbyn: vote of no confidence, leadership challenge (albeit with anyone serious lacking the balls to stand) and - 3, most tenuous - the IG breakaway.
The Conservatives can't muster 54 (was it?) anonymous letters. Labour would have been able to defenestrate Corbyn (and all indications are the PLP would have done so) under Conservative party rules.
From the Staggers, unpaywalled. It’s worth a read in full:
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?
Its a fair point. Cursory run over worldometers suggests overall Sweden has had 5 x the death rate of Norway. However, it has a better rate than most of the big European nations, such as UK, France, Spain, Italy and so on. Worse than Germany.
I think its reasonable to consider how fair comparisons are. Is Sweden more like Norway or France?
I'd also ask how the citizens of Sweden feel about how the pandemic was handled.
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.
I just don't see what it is you believe about Johnson's character that makes you think he will ride it out to next year and quietly slip away then. He will hang on for grim life until forced out - surely that's a fundamental aspect of his who he is?
Two MPs tell me that they do not want to trigger leadership contest because of the paucity of candidates. “Successors are all damaged, from national insurance or visas or silly remarks, that means an unpredictable contest and you can’t have that in a war,” one says.
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
"We need to hang on to the liar because the rest of us are shit" is an interesting argument for a party to make.
Labour did it with Corbyn....
That's not exactly a flattering comparison, either.
I'm wondering if Javid is back in play and worth backing now? I know he's had his own non-dom issues, but he's lanced the boil whilst attention was elsewhere.
I remain convinced that, if the Tories change leader before an election (a fairly big "if") it'll be for someone who is, or was until fairly recently, the holder of one of the great offices of state as it's a big punt choosing a PM (as opposed to LOTO) from outside that group. So I'm highly sceptical about Tugenhat, Mordaunt, and Wallace. Patel isn't a contender, Sunak has lost it completely and I can't see a route back in the medium term. The field is narrowing and Javid is beginning to look quite plausible to me.
That's too positive about how the ordinary person in the street will regard anyone exploiting the non-dom rules, even if it was before becoming a MP.
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.
If Johnson rides out the next week, the next Parliament is his, unless the electorate decide otherwise.
Perhaps but not certainly. A 2023 situation in which Labour leads in the polls, as now only more so, could easily lead to the MPs preferring to take a chance on keeping their seats in 2024 by anointing Hunt or Tugendhat. I think Truss will have vanished by then. She is not a heavyweight. And everyone in the current cabinet shares the taint.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 10m No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”
From the Staggers, unpaywalled. It’s worth a read in full:
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.
Bozza is going to roll the dice and hold a snap confidence vote isn’t he. Keep control of the narrative. A chance for heart felt apologies. And importantly the hope of turning the page.
"But the Met has said that further fines may be issued (see 11.43am) and so it is not necessarily the case that these will be the last fines issued to Johnson, or his wife Carrie. (Rishi Sunak is not thought to have attended any other Partygate events, so this probably is his only one.)
It does seem as if the Met are working through cases event by event, rather than individual by individual."
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 10m No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell was he doing there?
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.
No, you're not an MP or the PM. That's the point.
That's your point, I'm just enjoying the sweet ooze of hypocrisy
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 10m No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell as he doing there?
I think it means "at some time between" not "for this period" but am not at all sure.
Possibly PM Wallace or Javid or Truss by the end of the summer if true.
Though depends on how bad the polling and local election losses turn out to be for the Tories as to whether Johnson and Sunak survive
Direct question. The Prime Minister deliberately mislead the House. Repeatedly.
Do you think he should follow the Ministerial Code and resign?
Blair did not resign after misleading the House over WMD.
Thatcher/Belgrano?
What did she mislead the house about?
Absolutely nothing. The Belgrano was part of a pincer movement that was a threat to the task force. The decision to sink was a tough one but militarily correct. The loss of life was exacerbated by the supporting Argentine vessels fleeing the scene.
I never understood the fuss about the Belgrano. Wars are not won by playing nice.
The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.
Long time back, there was a very good documentary series by the BBC on the Falklands. They got everyone involved at a senior level, except Galteri, Thatcher and Reagan to participate.
The Commander of the Argentine Navy said the Belgians was in a mission to attack the task force. The captain of the Belgians said that he was on a mission to attack the task force. He also has instructions to attack any Royal Navy ships he happened across - such as submarines.
The U.K. government knew, because the NSA was sending decrypts of Argentine communications in real-time - the contents of these was disclosed by Julian Assange and Wikileaks, in one of their data dumps.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone mention “the Belgians” so much since this:
This is a fascinating affair, although I don’t expect any immediate consequences.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
My feeling is that these will be questions for 2023, and that therefore Boris exit 2023 may be a bit of value.
An outcome I outlined below. I think it a good bet. 2024 is way to late to depose him. 2022 only happens if Ukraine gets a rapid result, one way or the other.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.
maybe he will, the fates have not looked kindly on his period in office. he's had pestilence and war best leg it before famine and death get going.
I'm not sure I agree. He has had a pretty good war (except for refugees) and the pandemic was a bit mixed (definitely ignoring parties), but if neither were there it would be non stop brexit fallout. Currently any issue can be blamed on Russia, COVID or Brexit and only one of those can be definitely laid at Boris' door.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 10m No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell was he doing there?
"But the Met has said that further fines may be issued (see 11.43am) and so it is not necessarily the case that these will be the last fines issued to Johnson, or his wife Carrie. (Rishi Sunak is not thought to have attended any other Partygate events, so this probably is his only one.)
It does seem as if the Met are working through cases event by event, rather than individual by individual."
Tory backbencher: "We must wait and see how many fines each of them gets before we rush to judgment on their respective futures"
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 10m No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”
Bloody hell! The PM in the Cabinet Room. At 10 Downing Street? For an hour? What the hell as he doing there?
I think it means "at some time between" not "for this period" but am not at all sure.
So could be from 14:03 to 14:05 then? Technically.
"But the Met has said that further fines may be issued (see 11.43am) and so it is not necessarily the case that these will be the last fines issued to Johnson, or his wife Carrie. (Rishi Sunak is not thought to have attended any other Partygate events, so this probably is his only one.)
It does seem as if the Met are working through cases event by event, rather than individual by individual."
Tory backbencher: "We must wait and see how many fines each of them gets before we rush to judgment on their respective futures"
I forgot to say the GRaun feed says No 10 confirms it's the birthday do.
But I can't tell if your quote is serious or ironic - the way things are now.
Of all you right of centre posters on here, which always feels to me like a tidal surge, is there any one of you who does not think the Prime Minister should now resign?
Its not a lie if he didn't think anything he attended was a party.
Breaking the law is more serious than that.
There was a cake. And a singing of Happy Birthday. By Rishi Sunak.
If he didn't think that was a party...
I've had cake and sang happy birthday while at work before. Still thought of it as work, not a party.
If wishing a colleague a happy birthday, while in the office, while at a work meeting is a "party" then you and I have different interpretations of the word party.
Even if that is true, it is hard to argue it was ‘reasonably necessary for work purposes,’ which was the relevant law and should have been comprehensible even to this lot.
However, Johnson then has to explain how raising his glass of beer to a camera while wishing somebody happy birthday in a non-office location wasn’t a party!
I would strongly suggest that Boris's opponents avoid detailed arguments about what is or is not a party - it risks clouding the issue which should be very simple: he imposed draconian restrictions on the rest of us, and then failed to follow them. In which case, he felt that either (a) it was safe to ignore the restrictions because they were unnecessary; or (b) the restrictions shouldn't apply just to him (possibly through use of what he thought was a loophole.
Either way, he needs to go. Whether he lied to Parliament is moot.
This is *not* about the parties any more. Unless he is able to overturn the FPN, they are not in doubt (legally). This is now purely about the layers of lies. No-one should mention the party. Just the FPN and the lies.
No, the lies are irrelevant and distracting. It's about breaking the law.
AIUI there's no obligation to resign for that. But the thing that *does* oblige him to resign is lying to Parliament, under the ministerial code. So "breaking the law" is in fact a distraction from the resigning offence.
Lawmakers can not be lawbreakers, so that is a resigning offence.
Lying to Parliament has not been proven. It doesn't need to be though, lawmakers can not be lawbreakers.
1. "I did not attend a party" 2. Fined for attending a party 3. Q.E.D.
Proven.
2. Fined for attending a party breaking the law.
Fines have nothing to do with parties, it has to do with the law. Lawbreaking does not require parties.
The party was the gathering that was illegal. If it had been considered a work meeting there would have been no fine. It was not work according to the police. Because of cake and "Happy Birthday"
That doesn't prove it was a party, it proves the law was broken. As I said all along.
You can break the law even without a party.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think people are misinterpreting your comments as being pro Boris. The fact that he has broken the law is the most damning thing. To quote Marge Simpson it doesn't matter if the event was a party, shindig, hootenanny or a box social. Boris broke his own COVID laws and lied about doing so. Trying to define what to call the event is just playing his game.
The fact that he has broken the law means bugger all, everybody has at some point. It's the fact that he has been caught is the problem.
When was the last time you broke a law that you created and insisted everyone follow?
daft question Im not an MP. But Ill guarantee just about everyone on PB today has broken a law at some time.
No, you're not an MP or the PM. That's the point.
....I'm just enjoying the sweet ooze of hypocrisy
Pretty well a requirement for voting Tory at the moment.
From the Staggers, unpaywalled. It’s worth a read in full:
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
Comments
It wasn't a party, but its still illegal and he should still go.
It didn't take much to break the law during lockdown which is because of how draconian the restrictions were - and the PM and his Cabinet and Parliament passed those draconian restrictions then broke them. That is enough for them to have to go, even if no actual parties were known about and no lies to Parliament were told.
He won't be forced out by his MPs.
Rishi may well do. He knows he is not going to become PM - that has not changed as a result of the fine - and he will be off back to business at GE 2024.
Boris MAY think about his own prospects in due course before the next GE. Per the expected boundary changes he needs to 'GAIN' his own seat. He may seek an alternative seat or may decide that 'ok time for a new leader for the election' but this won't happen for a while. Or he may stay to fight the GE.
In the meantime Starmer will remain an uninspiring wooden ideas-free option going forward and into the next GE. And the LAB team immediately behind Starmer and in the parliamentary party won't change.
It's not party time for LAB yet!
Btw, I agree with you that Boris is unlikely to resign. Personally I'm not sure he should. It's the wrong time, there's no obvious replacement, and Labour is still convalescing.
Labour will of course be very happy for him to stay on, but that's a different matter. Maybe if the Locals are truly dreadful things may change, and I do think there is a fair chance of this happening.
But for the moment, I don't see Boris getting off the pot.
Rishi is now completely tarnished. After the tax revelations, he’s now exposed as both a grifter and a liar. He could, of course, bring down the PM if he resigned. But he won’t, because he’s also a coward who prefers the perks of high office.
Truss, or perhaps a Truss-Javid-Wallace axis, could also depose Johnson. Again, they won’t, as they fear a selectorate which has now become totally inured to lying and public malfeasance. See HYUFD who doesn’t even bother to provide excuses any more.
If I was a thinking Tory MP, I’d be hoping both go. The Tories can win the next election with a “fresh slate”. They can’t with these guys remaining in office.
I think the Tories will be happy enough to have a normal length leadership contest after the locals though. The rules do make such things reasonably swift.
I'd not be surprised to see a nearly complete unknown run.
I can't see Boris resigning now (unless there's some additional facts revealed), nor can I see the party ousting him before the locals, as it's better to wait until after.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-remarkably-weird-skeletons-of-frogs/
Which should we trust on matters of science? Nature or Unherd?
Just imagine if Rishi had said 2 weeks ago “I will resign if I get a FPN”
Now if he resigns it’s not “principled chancellor resigns, apologies for mistake, how long can Boris hang on”, it’s “tarnished chancellor resigns in shame and flees to California”
He’s been keeping such a low profile.
Truss PM / Gove CoE would be a potent combo.
Strategically it is likely best to wait for the council elections and the Sue Gray report.
Un peu excentrique...
https://twitter.com/derekcfrench/status/1513861902945902599
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1513894560258301964
So not so much "because of the war" but "because we might get a dud during a war" - Churchill was not obviously, or widely seen as a good bet when first appointed.....
Asking for a friend.
The only way Boris goes is via a coronation, and the ONLY candidate who could achieve that in the near term (3-6 months) is Liz Truss.
Much as I think she is an over-promoted Johnson “lite”, she does have the ability to present as an uncontaminated new start.
If you weee aiming for someone else you should resign regardless
Parliament must now be recalled so Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak can give their resignation statements, and MPs can hold this Tory government to account.
https://twitter.com/Ianblackford_MP/status/1513895606674198530
I remain convinced that, if the Tories change leader before an election (a fairly big "if") it'll be for someone who is, or was until fairly recently, the holder of one of the great offices of state as it's a big punt choosing a PM (as opposed to LOTO) from outside that group. So I'm highly sceptical about Tugenhat, Mordaunt, and Wallace. Patel isn't a contender, Sunak has lost it completely and I can't see a route back in the medium term. The field is narrowing and Javid is beginning to look quite plausible to me.
In hindsight Sweden handled Covid excellently. In hindsight we should have done the same, but hindsight is 20/20.
Boris is GOING NOWHERE.
I expect Boris to - ultimately - announce that he will resign, in time for the new leader to be in place by Conference 2023.
I would not be surprised if he tried to get someone else to pay the fine for him.
It’s now official. For the first time a British prime minister has been found to have committed a criminal act while in office…
…Johnson will not do the honourable thing and resign… But can even a politician as utterly shameless as he survive this ignominy? Can even this deeply compromised and corrupted Conservative parliamentary party ignore his egregious conduct?…
… Johnson’s apologists will protest that the Prime Minister cannot possibly be ousted in the midst of a war between Russia and Ukraine…
… Rishi Sunak’s implosion over his wife’s tax avoidance, and the fact that he himself has now been fined for attending lockdown parties, will make it even harder for Tory backbenchers to remove their leader… and there simply are no other plausible contenders in the cabinet. Liz Truss for prime minister, anyone? Priti Patel? It’s unlikely.
But the price the Tories would pay for protecting the Prime Minister would be enormous. How could they possibly set such a dreadful precedent, such a terrible example, by allowing a Prime Minister who has committed a crime and lied about it to remain in office? How could they possibly portray themselves as the party of law and order ever again? How could they possibly justify such a course to furious constituents who sacrificed so much, and who were unable to attend the deaths, funerals, weddings and births of loved ones during the lockdowns? Why should any British citizen trust, respect or listen to Johnson ever again?…
…As for the argument that Johnson should not be replaced in wartime, I would turn it on its head. How can we demonstrate the moral, practical and political superiority of Western democracy over Putin’s dictatorship if we spare a leader who breaks his own laws, lies to parliament and takes the people for fools?
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/04/we-cannot-have-a-criminal-prime-minister
And a lack of viable alternatives is excellent news for any incumbent more interested in their status than doing a good job. Mayor Boris could appoint competent "Deputies", becuase they weren't really deputies- they were never rivals for his position. PM Boris couldn't appoint the best ministers, becuase they might become a threat.
Sickening.
The Conservatives can't muster 54 (was it?) anonymous letters. Labour would have been able to defenestrate Corbyn (and all indications are the PLP would have done so) under Conservative party rules.
Surely he has no authority or credibility to do that whatsoever.
I think its reasonable to consider how fair comparisons are. Is Sweden more like Norway or France?
I'd also ask how the citizens of Sweden feel about how the pandemic was handled.
@MrHarryCole
·
10m
No 10: “The Met have now explained that the FPN issued to the PM will be in relation to the following incident: On 19 June 2020 at the Cabinet Room 10 Downing Street between 1400 and 1500 you participated in a gathering of two or more people indoors in the Cabinet Room at 10DS.”
"But the Met has said that further fines may be issued (see 11.43am) and so it is not necessarily the case that these will be the last fines issued to Johnson, or his wife Carrie. (Rishi Sunak is not thought to have attended any other Partygate events, so this probably is his only one.)
It does seem as if the Met are working through cases event by event, rather than individual by individual."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ty7qO_RCnWA
But I can't tell if your quote is serious or ironic - the way things are now.
We can sack Boris later.
And that's without me leaving Cannock...
Paul Waugh
@paulwaugh
·
13m
💥My snap analysis on today's Covid lockdown fines for Johnson and Sunak.
The Tories look like a party drunk on power, not just drunk on cheap Tesco suitcase booze
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1513900295121743872