It is completely obvious he has lost the confidence of the party and the House.
Starmer can test the confidence of the House, the Tories internal processes can test the confidence of the party.
So far neither of those has actually happened.
It might be time for Starmer to call a VONC. It's a win-win for him - either the Tories once more smear themselves in Johnson's excrement, or we get rid of Johnson and the nation thanks him for doing us all a favour.
Personally I don't think failing to form a Government will deter Boris in the least.
That's not the kind of thing which will bother him.
Only if he has gone howling-at-the-moon mad.
Anybody sane can see his authority has gone. His greatest currency is patronage. But if nobody wants to take the jobs he is offering....
I did pose the question yesterday about what happens if a PM goes insane. The response was about sociopathy but that wasn't really my point.
What DOES happen if a PM goes insane or has a serious mental breakdown that they themselves refuse to acknowledge whilst in office? There's no written constitution so what would happen?
I think what you are missing is that there are systems for removing the PM. The problem at the moment is that none of the players - and that includes the Leader of the Opposition - are willing to exercise them. Too many people are still putting personal advantage above the good of the country.
How can the LOTO remove him? Do you mean a VONC on the Government? I'm not sure that's a viable 'system' for removing the PM because it isn't a vote of no confidence in the PM it's a vote of no confidence in the Government, which hitherto has triggered a General Election. The latter would be in Labour's interest but there's no way the parliamentary Conservative Party will go down that route.
I think this just proves the point. Our unwritten constitution relies on people playing by accepted rules of decency or sanity.
Yes it is a VONC in the Government, but not in the party in power. Starmer knows this and at present he is making a calculation that triggering and winning a VONC will be good for the country but also good for the Tory party and he is not willing to do that.
Both parties have it in their hands to end this today via the VONC route.
Starmer could table a VONC and make it clear he accepts this will not lead to a General Election. The process plays out and a new Tory administration is formed based on their existing majority in Parliament. This would be the right thing to do for the country but not necessarily for the Labour party.
The Tories in sufficient numbers could make it clear that they will support a VONC and accept it leading to a GE. They would have to do this publicly otherwise Starmer would not be able to hold them to it. Starmer could then call a VONC based on these assurances. This would be good for the country but bad for the Tory party.
At the moment both sides are putting political calculations ahead of the good of the country (as far as the specific issue of a VONC is concerned). This does none of them any credit.
the 300 tories who want the Mad King out of No 10 could just abstain on Starmer's VONC couldn't they?
It is completely obvious he has lost the confidence of the party and the House.
Starmer can test the confidence of the House, the Tories internal processes can test the confidence of the party.
So far neither of those has actually happened.
I really find the 1922 inexplicable. They are needed to test that confidence, but they balked, seemingly on some absurd notion thr process would be deemed more proper if the new executive did it.
Have they seen the loyalist talk of traitors? They wont care if the rules were changed yesterday or Monday.
Look forward to seeing the Tory posters accusing Labour of being in a coalition of chaos if they win in 2024!
No problem. Two years of steady-as-she-goes PM Mordaunt by then.
I can see the Cosnervatives splitting after this, although the greater the number of rebellious MPs, the less likely that it. I can see **** like JRM campaigning for a 'pure' Brexit position for the party, and causing splits that way.
He does not strike me as the sort to forgive.
Predictions of party splits are overdone. If anything was going to split a major party, it was Corbyn. The closest we got was defections to Change UK or whatever it ended up calling itself, and that turned out very poorly for those involved. Not going to happen.
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
And what if he doesn't go after losing a vonc of Tory MPs?
I'd have thought in that situation, the Palace will invite someone to form a government, and Johnson would, quite literally, be dragged out of Downing Street.
Oh I have doubts there are ways out of this but we are in uncharted waters. Boris has already done the unthinkable several times so I wouldn't put it passed him. Re your solution (which may well happen) but it means a) the palace intervening which it avoids doing and b) who does she invite?
"We are unlikely to reach a point where the Queen is required to make a decision in any case. Long before such action, Downing Street would be advised (read: strongly warned) against putting the monarchy in such a publicly contentious situation. Thus whatever happens in the coming days, there is more chance of Larry the Downing Street cat growing wings and flying to Mars than a snap general election being called."
Telegraph
That's interference in politics by any measure.
Interference? Hmmm. I think the great majority would say "Good on yer, ma'am.." It would not harm the Monarchy for Boris to be dragged to the Tower, right now.
But that is still interference, when the rules, such as they are, have not been followed to conclusion, as others are pointing out. The merest HR department would advise otherwise. He could take HMG to an industrial tribunal and win for constructive dismissal!
And more to the point his supporters would create a myth of a 1918-style Stab in the Back. Look what HYUFD was saying about traitors yesterday. Johnson and if need be the Tory Party need to be conclusively defeated Downfall-style so there is no argument.
More generally, as with the 2014 referendum, it sets an ill precedent when we have a much more interventionist Royal sooner or later to come on line.
Beyond the "nuclear war with russia" scenario all it might take is another major drama somewhere else in the country/world that you need a Prime Ministerial response for to really put this situation into context for the shit-fest it is.
Personally I don't think failing to form a Government will deter Boris in the least.
That's not the kind of thing which will bother him.
Only if he has gone howling-at-the-moon mad.
Anybody sane can see his authority has gone. His greatest currency is patronage. But if nobody wants to take the jobs he is offering....
I did pose the question yesterday about what happens if a PM goes insane. The response was about sociopathy but that wasn't really my point.
What DOES happen if a PM goes insane or has a serious mental breakdown that they themselves refuse to acknowledge whilst in office? There's no written constitution so what would happen?
I think what you are missing is that there are systems for removing the PM. The problem at the moment is that none of the players - and that includes the Leader of the Opposition - are willing to exercise them. Too many people are still putting personal advantage above the good of the country.
How can the LOTO remove him? Do you mean a VONC on the Government? I'm not sure that's a viable 'system' for removing the PM because it isn't a vote of no confidence in the PM it's a vote of no confidence in the Government, which hitherto has triggered a General Election. The latter would be in Labour's interest but there's no way the parliamentary Conservative Party will go down that route.
I think this just proves the point. Our unwritten constitution relies on people playing by accepted rules of decency or sanity.
Yes it is a VONC in the Government, but not in the party in power. Starmer knows this and at present he is making a calculation that triggering and winning a VONC will be good for the country but also good for the Tory party and he is not willing to do that.
Both parties have it in their hands to end this today via the VONC route.
Starmer could table a VONC and make it clear he accepts this will not lead to a General Election. The process plays out and a new Tory administration is formed based on their existing majority in Parliament. This would be the right thing to do for the country but not necessarily for the Labour party.
The Tories in sufficient numbers could make it clear that they will support a VONC and accept it leading to a GE. They would have to do this publicly otherwise Starmer would not be able to hold them to it. Starmer could then call a VONC based on these assurances. This would be good for the country but bad for the Tory party.
At the moment both sides are putting political calculations ahead of the good of the country (as far as the specific issue of a VONC is concerned). This does none of them any credit.
I don't know. I mean, I can see what you're saying about the good of the country but this is a mess of the tory party's own making and it's for them to sort it out.
I don't really see why Labour should ride to the rescue of the Conservative Party. It certainly wouldn't happen the other way around.
One other observation this morning is that in many other countries - including the US - we would already be seeing public demonstrations and probably riots by now. It is another strength of our systems and, I would suggest, of our society, that so far this has not happened here.
Why miss and spoil one of the few warm and sunny weekends of the year by going off rioting?
I wouldn't put it past a bit of rioting this summer, and hot summer nights in the city tend to be the time. The trigger could be anything cost of living related.
As English is a living language, I am proposing the addition of a new verb today. To braverman: means to have it both ways entirely without scruples. Example. ‘I have bravermanned my position on climate change, calling for drastic action but no curbs on Co2 emissions’
Gavin Barwell live on LBC saying what I just said - we need to change the system as it is currently predicated on the PM being a good faith actor.
Not really, as @MarqueeMark says, the 22 could have changed the rules last night. That they didn't shows that as much as lots of people want the PM gone, they're prepared to let this nonsense continue a little longer because they think that is better than looking like they've changed the rules of the game.
And what if he doesn't go after losing a vonc of Tory MPs?
Then at least there can be a vote of no confidence in the Commons, which would pass by an overwhelming majority, and the Queen can dismiss him if necessary without any controversy.
No doubt. Just pointing out a vonc by Tory MPs isn't a slam dunk with Boris.
Beyond the "nuclear war with russia" scenario all it might take is another major drama somewhere else in the country/world that you need a Prime Ministerial response for to really put this situation into context for the shit-fest it is.
London Bridge? Can you imagine?
It did go through my mind that Johnson might have some inside knowledge and is playing for time around something like this.
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
I have no idea what the definition of 'downblousing' is but having shot three Berlei commercials and dozens of others which have included decolletage I'm wondering whether to just hand myself in.
The answer is in one word: Consent.
The trickier issue is what you might call general beach photos and individuals who wish to reveal almost everything in public but object to someone taking a photo on a beach.
It's the situation where a few **** spoil everything for everyone else. Upskirting and downblousing is a real problem (albeit the scale of which is uncertain), and with the Internet meaning piccies can be spread much wider and quicker than before, the consequences for victims much more severe.
So something needs doing, and that probably means a law. And a law can be abused: people taking innocent pictures could be accused of something they did not intend.
I'm unsure the correct way to approach this, given Covid shows that the law can be an ass when it comes to applying rules and regulations - as Derbyshire Police so exemplified.
Heathener: I must admit it's funny hearing someone talk about the joys of travelling, and then talking about the horrors of the business lounge not being up to snuff.
How the other 1% live ....
Yep I'm a champagne socialist.
I love flying business class on long haul because sleep is important to me. So I flatbed and sleep for many hours and wake up in a decent enough state to get going. When I don't sleep much I get very light-headed and discombobulated.
However, to be equally fair to myself I should point out that I have Silver status with OneWorld which has been extended to 2024. So I can buy an economy ticket and still use the business lounges. It's a great perk. When I returned from Scotland in the autumn I flew back for, iirc, £20 with Avios points but I was able to use the business lounge. Made it a rather pleasant experience.
[...]
But please continue to stay home. The rest of us are enjoying a somewhat quieter, sweeter world. Today I am walking down to the Rijeka River for a swim. Bliss
No that's fine. But in that case, return the favour by keeping it to yourself. It all comes across as a bit too desperate. 'This is all wonderful. Honest'
If it was that wonderful you wouldn't be parked up on here all the time posting photos.
Just my view. Don't do your bullying expletive ridden default response please.
Oh lordy. you cannot help yourself, can you? That last sentence was utterly unnecessary.
Anyway, I personally like the little travelogues we get on here. They're not strictly necessary, but as long as there are not too many of them it adds to the site IMO.
Unless or until you have been on the receiving end of bullying you would not understand.
Sir Keir got the tone of that absolutely right yesterday. When you have been abused by a man, or in my case also raped, it teaches you to watch for signs of bullying demeanour. The default response to turn to CAPS LOCK, or use swear words, or opprobrium is bullying behaviour and I hesitated therefore to respond to Leon because I feared he would do it again. I don't like it and it tends to drive me away from here. It literally leaves me shaking with fear and ruins my day. If you have some decency you might just pause for a moment over your keys and listen to me as a woman who has been on the receiving end.
Anyway, we have other things to discuss. I aired a travel piece that was thoughtful, I felt.
x
[...]
This is a site for robust political debate. You yourself often insult people without reason [...]
JJ there's a huge difference between critiquing a point of view and being personally insulting or resorting to Ad Hominem or opprobrium.
If I've insulted you in the past then I apologise. Actually I believe I already did apologise months ago for that and so I'm disappointed that you have re-raised it.
I also suspect, with respect, that you all-too-readily rush to defend the indefensible because of a shared political perspective. The best posters on here are polite to one another despite differences but they're also not sycophantic to those of a similar persuasion when they cross the line.
Peace.
x
"I also suspect, with respect, that you all-too-readily rush to defend the indefensible because of a shared political perspective."
Really? With Leon? He shifts his political perspective so often I think everyone from BJO to HYUFD can claim a shared political perspective with him.
And it is not 'defending the indefensible'. It is very defensible; you just disagree with that defence. Which is fair enough: but it does not automatically make your opinion correct.
What political perspectives would you say we share, or was that just a throw-away comment?
Hi, no I meant by indefensible when the line is crossed into swearing at and bullying someone. It happens quite frequently on here. I wasn't referring to political opinions with that adjective.
You're generally on the right, are you not? As is Leon.
Anyway I think we've both aired this one sufficiently. I'm happy to leave it there in peace if you are?
Personally I don't think failing to form a Government will deter Boris in the least.
That's not the kind of thing which will bother him.
Only if he has gone howling-at-the-moon mad.
Anybody sane can see his authority has gone. His greatest currency is patronage. But if nobody wants to take the jobs he is offering....
I did pose the question yesterday about what happens if a PM goes insane. The response was about sociopathy but that wasn't really my point.
What DOES happen if a PM goes insane or has a serious mental breakdown that they themselves refuse to acknowledge whilst in office? There's no written constitution so what would happen?
I think what you are missing is that there are systems for removing the PM. The problem at the moment is that none of the players - and that includes the Leader of the Opposition - are willing to exercise them. Too many people are still putting personal advantage above the good of the country.
How can the LOTO remove him? Do you mean a VONC on the Government? I'm not sure that's a viable 'system' for removing the PM because it isn't a vote of no confidence in the PM it's a vote of no confidence in the Government, which hitherto has triggered a General Election. The latter would be in Labour's interest but there's no way the parliamentary Conservative Party will go down that route.
I think this just proves the point. Our unwritten constitution relies on people playing by accepted rules of decency or sanity.
Yes it is a VONC in the Government, but not in the party in power. Starmer knows this and at present he is making a calculation that triggering and winning a VONC will be good for the country but also good for the Tory party and he is not willing to do that.
Both parties have it in their hands to end this today via the VONC route.
Starmer could table a VONC and make it clear he accepts this will not lead to a General Election. The process plays out and a new Tory administration is formed based on their existing majority in Parliament. This would be the right thing to do for the country but not necessarily for the Labour party.
The Tories in sufficient numbers could make it clear that they will support a VONC and accept it leading to a GE. They would have to do this publicly otherwise Starmer would not be able to hold them to it. Starmer could then call a VONC based on these assurances. This would be good for the country but bad for the Tory party.
At the moment both sides are putting political calculations ahead of the good of the country (as far as the specific issue of a VONC is concerned). This does none of them any credit.
I don't know. I mean, I can see what you're saying about the good of the country but this is a mess of the tory party's own making and it's for them to sort it out.
I don't really see why Labour should ride to the rescue of the Conservative Party. It certainly wouldn't happen the other way around.
As I said yesterday, it's toxic for Labour to appear on the same platform as the Tories. The evidence is Scotland 2014-2015. You need a solid lead wall and a MOPP-4 noddy suit to go anywhere near a Tory in public. Can't ask Labour to sacrifice itself fot its Tory masters again, can one?
As English is a living language, I am proposing the addition of a new verb today. To braverman: means to have it both ways entirely without scruples. Example. ‘I have bravermanned my position on climate change, calling for drastic action but no curbs on Co2 emissions’
It is completely obvious he has lost the confidence of the party and the House.
Starmer can test the confidence of the House, the Tories internal processes can test the confidence of the party.
So far neither of those has actually happened.
I really find the 1922 inexplicable. They are needed to test that confidence, but they balked, seemingly on some absurd notion thr process would be deemed more proper if the new executive did it.
Have they seen the loyalist talk of traitors? They wont care if the rules were changed yesterday or Monday.
I think it's OK actually - a week isn't so long to go. Personally I'd favour a higher bar for letters for each subsequent challenge or else you could get ~ 50 persistent trouble makers calling leadership elections they know they'd lose. So maybe each subsequent challenge within a year requires 10% more letters (15, 25, 35, 45, 50) than the previous one. It'd be a bar that was passed if the current Tory leader really had to go but not if they didn't.
For all the talk we're nowhere near Trump territory yet. Trump's party with a few exceptions was and is very much behind him, Boris has nowhere near the same levels of personal support.
Just a reminder Boris Johnson is still control of our nuclear weapons.
Who's he going to nuke first... Tiverton, Honiton, or Michael Gove's house?
Seriously, though, I don't really see the relevance of this in the context of an internal power struggle. There are, in fact, fail-safes in the event of a mad PM (largely that nuclear codes only authorise use of a weapon, they don't physically launch it). He also, for all the hyperbole around today, isn't mad. What he is is a deeply unpleasant, selfish, shameless individual, who feels he should remain as PM and has no concern about harming his Party and his colleagues by sticking two fingers up at them and refusing to do the dignified thing. That's not very nice, but it is "rational" in the sense it is in line with the Boris Johnson we know and that Tory MPs were repeatedly warned about.
Beyond the "nuclear war with russia" scenario all it might take is another major drama somewhere else in the country/world that you need a Prime Ministerial response for to really put this situation into context for the shit-fest it is.
London Bridge? Can you imagine?
It did go through my mind that Johnson might have some inside knowledge and is playing for time around something like this.
As you probably know I am a long-standing federalist who has posted on here that we need to significantly reform many of the institutions and unwritten guff that is our constitution.
This is a prime example of why. We have a rogue Prime Minister. He refuses to quit. Claims a mass mandate that literally doesn't exist in the real world. Is likely to ignore the Tory party. Even if they refuse to serve in his cabinet it remains in his remit to call an election - I AM KING style.
We really have to sort this out. The fallacy that "I have a mandate" is one that many many voters actually believe to be true. How many people say "I voted for Boris" when they did not?
Morning RP.
I actually think you have this exactly the wrong way round. You quite rightly claim that Johnson is wrong with his 'I have a Mandate'' claims but your answer is to put in place someone who would have exactly that mandate and could behave as Johnson has with absolutely no recourse at all.
We can all agree that a lot of the players are handling this badly by not removing him at the earliest opportunity but the fact remains they do have the power to do so if they choose. What you are suggesting would make that far more difficult and make any putative President Johnson's claims legally valid.
I'm a long-standing advocate for Single Transferable Vote with Multi-Member Constituencies. Which would scrap even the direct mandate that MPs claim from their constituencies. So I want to go *further* to disconnect this nonsense that we elect a Prime Minister.
In my eyes it appears that you want to reduce the mandate held by MPs whilst at the same time increasing the mandate held by an individual in power at the top. That would validate any personal mandate claims by someone like Johnson and make today's mess all the more likely.
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
I have no idea what the definition of 'downblousing' is but having shot three Berlei commercials and dozens of others which have included decolletage I'm wondering whether to just hand myself in.
The answer is in one word: Consent.
The trickier issue is what you might call general beach photos and individuals who wish to reveal almost everything in public but object to someone taking a photo on a beach.
Even the word is absurd! I appreciate your efforts to make sense of it but just think about it for a moment. There are already copyright and privacy laws what exactly can you enviage a camera doing that is now being made illegal?
Beyond the "nuclear war with russia" scenario all it might take is another major drama somewhere else in the country/world that you need a Prime Ministerial response for to really put this situation into context for the shit-fest it is.
London Bridge? Can you imagine?
It did go through my mind that Johnson might have some inside knowledge and is playing for time around something like this.
Durham Police, surely.
London Bridge changes nothing in so far as King Charles becomes King the instant her Majesty passes and he is even more likely to tell Johnson to do one on an early dissolution.
Personally I don't think failing to form a Government will deter Boris in the least.
That's not the kind of thing which will bother him.
Only if he has gone howling-at-the-moon mad.
Anybody sane can see his authority has gone. His greatest currency is patronage. But if nobody wants to take the jobs he is offering....
I did pose the question yesterday about what happens if a PM goes insane. The response was about sociopathy but that wasn't really my point.
What DOES happen if a PM goes insane or has a serious mental breakdown that they themselves refuse to acknowledge whilst in office? There's no written constitution so what would happen?
I think what you are missing is that there are systems for removing the PM. The problem at the moment is that none of the players - and that includes the Leader of the Opposition - are willing to exercise them. Too many people are still putting personal advantage above the good of the country.
How can the LOTO remove him? Do you mean a VONC on the Government? I'm not sure that's a viable 'system' for removing the PM because it isn't a vote of no confidence in the PM it's a vote of no confidence in the Government, which hitherto has triggered a General Election. The latter would be in Labour's interest but there's no way the parliamentary Conservative Party will go down that route.
I think this just proves the point. Our unwritten constitution relies on people playing by accepted rules of decency or sanity.
Yes it is a VONC in the Government, but not in the party in power. Starmer knows this and at present he is making a calculation that triggering and winning a VONC will be good for the country but also good for the Tory party and he is not willing to do that.
Both parties have it in their hands to end this today via the VONC route.
Starmer could table a VONC and make it clear he accepts this will not lead to a General Election. The process plays out and a new Tory administration is formed based on their existing majority in Parliament. This would be the right thing to do for the country but not necessarily for the Labour party.
The Tories in sufficient numbers could make it clear that they will support a VONC and accept it leading to a GE. They would have to do this publicly otherwise Starmer would not be able to hold them to it. Starmer could then call a VONC based on these assurances. This would be good for the country but bad for the Tory party.
At the moment both sides are putting political calculations ahead of the good of the country (as far as the specific issue of a VONC is concerned). This does none of them any credit.
the 300 tories who want the Mad King out of No 10 could just abstain on Starmer's VONC couldn't they?
Yep. They don't even have to vote in favour of it. But again at present both sides seem to be more interested in personal advantage for their party than in the good of the country.
Though as I said earlier we are only 48 hours into this so it is a bit early for me to necessarily make those claims. People take time to adjust to new realities.
If Quentin Letts is right, the problem might be more human than political. Boris hasn’t got anyone in there with the emotional authority to say OK old friend, this is it, now
Well, I'm going to get absolutely nothing done today.
LOL
I've got an optician's appointment at midday. I wonder if, right at the bottom line of the eyesight chart, there will be a tiny microdot that represents Johnson's morality.
"Now, sir, can you read the lines?" "A M G H V" "And the next?" "P D A W" "Can you see anything below the bottom line?" "No." "That's good; neither can anyone else."
If Quentin Letts is right, the problem might be more human than political. Boris hasn’t got anyone in there with the emotional authority to say OK old friend, this is it, now
He hasn’t got a Dom or a Carrie
Aides and loyalists will be too nervous
Normally the spouse would tell the PM when it's time to go.
Something tells me the spouse will be doing the exact opposite this time.
As English is a living language, I am proposing the addition of a new verb today. To braverman: means to have it both ways entirely without scruples. Example. ‘I have bravermanned my position on climate change, calling for drastic action but no curbs on Co2 emissions’
If Quentin Letts is right, the problem might be more human than political. Boris hasn’t got anyone in there with the emotional authority to say OK old friend, this is it, now
He hasn’t got a Dom or a Carrie
Aides and loyalists will be too nervous
That rings true, sadly it’s a bed he has created for himself. A good friend or experienced partner is what he needs. But he sold them all out.
As English is a living language, I am proposing the addition of a new verb today. To braverman: means to have it both ways entirely without scruples. Example. ‘I have bravermanned my position on climate change, calling for drastic action but no curbs on Co2 emissions’
If Quentin Letts is right, the problem might be more human than political. Boris hasn’t got anyone in there with the emotional authority to say OK old friend, this is it, now
He hasn’t got a Dom or a Carrie
Aides and loyalists will be too nervous
That rings true, sadly it’s a bed he has created for himself. A good friend or experienced partner is what he needs. But he sold them all out.
He has JRM and Dorries whispering he is great instead
A number of us have an obligation to keep this country safe,no matter who is PM. The Party has a mechanism to change leaders & that is the mechanism which I advise colleagues to use.The public would not forgive us if we left these Offices of State empty.
A number National Security Ministers are directly involved in authorising, on a daily basis, operations to defend the UK & its citizens. These authorisations range from warrants, live operations and wider deployments as well as responses to, Terrorist,Cyber and other of attacks.
I was wondering how much, if anything, these resignations will cost the individuals concerned. If they are re-appointed next week is it just a weeks pay, or would it have an impact on pensions or length of service type payments too? Obviously if they go back to being a backbencher it costs them more but that is largely out of their control.
£67,505 is the (Additional) salary for being a minister. So 2 days pro rata would be £370. She's left of her own accord so there's no constructive dismissal potential award there.
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
Apparently already law in NI:
Northern Irish Justice Minister Naomi Long, who strengthened the law in this area in Northern Ireland, told the BBC: "New offences have been created for upskirting, downblousing and cyber-flashing where those convicted will be liable to a maximum of two years' imprisonment.
"I believe these new provisions will offer greater protection in Northern Ireland and that it will have a real, tangible and positive effect for victims," she said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62045112
I'm no fan of vanity laws so that the latest lot of outrage bus drivers get their trophy. It is far better that these be framed on general principles that apply to everyone.
This is from the Law Commission, so needs to be taken a little seriously.
As English is a living language, I am proposing the addition of a new verb today. To braverman: means to have it both ways entirely without scruples. Example. ‘I have bravermanned my position on climate change, calling for drastic action but no curbs on Co2 emissions’
It still amazes me how Ferrari stopped their title hopeful from taking more out of Verstappen's lead. Sainz deserves a win but the team strategy was... inept.
If Quentin Letts is right, the problem might be more human than political. Boris hasn’t got anyone in there with the emotional authority to say OK old friend, this is it, now
He hasn’t got a Dom or a Carrie
Aides and loyalists will be too nervous
That rings true, sadly it’s a bed he has created for himself. A good friend or experienced partner is what he needs. But he sold them all out.
There have been jokes about men in white coats, but when this kind of delusional thinking goes far enough, doesn't it have to be classified as a clinical disorder? Isn't is getting quite close to that? Because I don't believe Zahawi and Donelan didn't make clear to him last night what the consequences of trying to stay would be. And still he has tried to stay.
BTW today might be a good day to point out that whatever the faults and limitations it is truly good as we go through all this crisis to have a politically independent public broadcaster properly funded at least to cover news.
I was wondering how much, if anything, these resignations will cost the individuals concerned. If they are re-appointed next week is it just a weeks pay, or would it have an impact on pensions or length of service type payments too? Obviously if they go back to being a backbencher it costs them more but that is largely out of their control.
A friend of a friend in the civil service has been busy. With each resignation, some pour soul has to change the access permissions to all sorts of complex government systems and documents.
But all Boris is doing is what Boris has always done.
He's always put himself first, second and everywhere.
He's never had respect for constitutional norms.
He's never been honest.
His whole life has always been about "you can't make me".
The only thing that has changed is that, instead of screwing over The Man, he's screwing over all of us.
Everyone knew this, and yet the Tory party put him in Downing Street. They are the real villains in this.
The British people kept him there to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, given Labour was offering a choice of refusing to respect the EU Referendum result and making Corbyn PM
Beyond the "nuclear war with russia" scenario all it might take is another major drama somewhere else in the country/world that you need a Prime Ministerial response for to really put this situation into context for the shit-fest it is.
London Bridge? Can you imagine?
At least with London Bridge it would be clear that the serving monarch was fully able to carry out their duties.
You really couldn't make this ridiculous country up!
It can't all be Boris's fault though when you have a clown in charge perhaps everything looks like a circus
Morning Roger.
Are you objecting to 'downblousing' or to it being made illegal. It wasn't clear from your post.
Apparently already law in NI:
Northern Irish Justice Minister Naomi Long, who strengthened the law in this area in Northern Ireland, told the BBC: "New offences have been created for upskirting, downblousing and cyber-flashing where those convicted will be liable to a maximum of two years' imprisonment.
"I believe these new provisions will offer greater protection in Northern Ireland and that it will have a real, tangible and positive effect for victims," she said. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62045112
I'm no fan of vanity laws so that the latest lot of outrage bus drivers get their trophy. It is far better that these be framed on general principles that apply to everyone.
This is from the Law Commission, so needs to be taken a little seriously.
Suspect this one will be wished on us.
Having a specific offence makes it much easier to deal with in the courts.
This is the kind of stuff that government is actually made of - it's not all Build! Giant! Thing! Here! Heroically!
Comments
Have they seen the loyalist talk of traitors? They wont care if the rules were changed yesterday or Monday.
And more to the point his supporters would create a myth of a 1918-style Stab in the Back. Look what HYUFD was saying about traitors yesterday. Johnson and if need be the Tory Party need to be conclusively defeated Downfall-style so there is no argument.
More generally, as with the 2014 referendum, it sets an ill precedent when we have a much more interventionist Royal sooner or later to come on line.
He’s now playing the martyr and is trying to act all moral . Fxck off!
Can you imagine?
I don't really see why Labour should ride to the rescue of the Conservative Party. It certainly wouldn't happen the other way around.
https://twitter.com/nadhimzahawi/status/1544950219657330688
He must be having a breakdown.
He's always put himself first, second and everywhere.
He's never had respect for constitutional norms.
He's never been honest.
His whole life has always been about "you can't make me".
The only thing that has changed is that, instead of screwing over The Man, he's screwing over all of us.
The white coats need to gently lead Johnson by the hand to somewhere where he can rest and be treated.
So something needs doing, and that probably means a law. And a law can be abused: people taking innocent pictures could be accused of something they did not intend.
I'm unsure the correct way to approach this, given Covid shows that the law can be an ass when it comes to applying rules and regulations - as Derbyshire Police so exemplified.
You're generally on the right, are you not? As is Leon.
Anyway I think we've both aired this one sufficiently. I'm happy to leave it there in peace if you are?
Education zero.
Have some goddamned pride man - you backed your horse like 30 hours ago.
His leadership ambitions have to be gone right? The early rebels wont like him, and now he's burned the loyalists.
Personally I'd favour a higher bar for letters for each subsequent challenge or else you could get ~ 50 persistent trouble makers calling leadership elections they know they'd lose. So maybe each subsequent challenge within a year requires 10% more letters (15, 25, 35, 45, 50) than the previous one. It'd be a bar that was passed if the current Tory leader really had to go but not if they didn't.
For all the talk we're nowhere near Trump territory yet. Trump's party with a few exceptions was and is very much behind him, Boris has nowhere near the same levels of personal support.
Seriously, though, I don't really see the relevance of this in the context of an internal power struggle. There are, in fact, fail-safes in the event of a mad PM (largely that nuclear codes only authorise use of a weapon, they don't physically launch it). He also, for all the hyperbole around today, isn't mad. What he is is a deeply unpleasant, selfish, shameless individual, who feels he should remain as PM and has no concern about harming his Party and his colleagues by sticking two fingers up at them and refusing to do the dignified thing. That's not very nice, but it is "rational" in the sense it is in line with the Boris Johnson we know and that Tory MPs were repeatedly warned about.
https://twitter.com/michelledonelan/status/1544952139549708288
I reckon he’s gone today. Before cricket close of play. Before 6.30pm
LOL
Zhou didn't do this, of course. He's not an idiot.
"Yes the ship was on fire and sinking when I agreed to serve as first mate, but who says no to promotion?"
Though as I said earlier we are only 48 hours into this so it is a bit early for me to necessarily make those claims. People take time to adjust to new realities.
All that is left is to invade France
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1544953379084017664
He hasn’t got a Dom or a Carrie
Aides and loyalists will be too nervous
"Now, sir, can you read the lines?"
"A M G H V"
"And the next?"
"P D A W"
"Can you see anything below the bottom line?"
"No."
"That's good; neither can anyone else."
Something tells me the spouse will be doing the exact opposite this time.
He still needs to put on some glam-rock makeup, though.
Not bad work if you can get it
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1544954404494778370
A man of towering integrity.
A number National Security Ministers are directly involved in authorising, on a daily basis, operations to defend the UK & its citizens. These authorisations range from warrants, live operations and wider deployments as well as responses to, Terrorist,Cyber and other of attacks.
https://twitter.com/BWallaceMP/status/1544954799606697984
£67,505 is the (Additional) salary for being a minister. So 2 days pro rata would be £370. She's left of her own accord so there's no constructive dismissal potential award there.
Northern Irish Justice Minister Naomi Long, who strengthened the law in this area in Northern Ireland, told the BBC: "New offences have been created for upskirting, downblousing and cyber-flashing where those convicted will be liable to a maximum of two years' imprisonment.
"I believe these new provisions will offer greater protection in Northern Ireland and that it will have a real, tangible and positive effect for victims," she said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62045112
I'm no fan of vanity laws so that the latest lot of outrage bus drivers get their trophy. It is far better that these be framed on general principles that apply to everyone.
This is from the Law Commission, so needs to be taken a little seriously.
If Boris goes Wallace or Mordaunt are the only viable successors now from my point of view
It still amazes me how Ferrari stopped their title hopeful from taking more out of Verstappen's lead. Sainz deserves a win but the team strategy was... inept.
She's left of her own accord.
This is the kind of stuff that government is actually made of - it's not all Build! Giant! Thing! Here! Heroically!
That should be a honorary first!!