I think a problem for Johnson is that - presumably as advised by Pannick - he's adopting a very specific, careful interpretation of the guidelines and rules. But it just does not accord with how he publicly explained them at the time, as prime minister
Pannick shouldn’t be coaching a witness like that.
Er, is he only a witness?
In this context he is. He's a witness in his own defence.
Break: ERG number crunching shows @RishiSunak needed opposition MPs to get his Northern Ireland deal passed. There were 48 Conservative abstentions which they say = 24 no votes. Add that to 22 actual No votes and you have 46 No votes which = loss of government majority
Thats a super-f**king leap to assume all abstentions would be no votes.
He is not saying they are no votes but saying 48 abstentions is equivalent to 24 no votes when it comes to the count. That is an abstention is worth half of going through the opponents lobby.
Hes beefing up the extent of opposition by using abstentions, its pretty obvious.
I think a problem for Johnson is that - presumably as advised by Pannick - he's adopting a very specific, careful interpretation of the guidelines and rules. But it just does not accord with how he publicly explained them at the time, as prime minister
When your defence relies on very precise use of language I'm not sure Boris is the best person to try it with.
Yes, it's Boris. Yes, he's a liar. But Boris, like all of us, is human.
He was manifestly unfit to do the job, before, during and after covid.
As I routinely said before, during and after. I'm not exactly a Boris fan. I was not a fan when some people who are now against him were for him (because he delivered Brexit).
But the weight of those decisions would probably have destroyed me, even if I had not been critically ill with Covid,
I think a problem for Johnson is that - presumably as advised by Pannick - he's adopting a very specific, careful interpretation of the guidelines and rules. But it just does not accord with how he publicly explained them at the time, as prime minister
When your defence relies on very precise use of language I'm not sure Boris is the best person to try it with.
BoJo can barely speak English, odd for such a renowned "author" let along a distinguished Oxford "classicist"?
Yes, it's Boris. Yes, he's a liar. But Boris, like all of us, is human.
He was manifestly unfit to do the job, before, during and after covid.
As I routinely said before, during and after. I'm not exactly a Boris fan. I was not a fan when some people who are now against him were for him (because he delivered Brexit).
But the weight of those decisions would probably have destroyed me, even if I had not been critically ill with Covid,
I hope that it would not have made you into a lying deceitful git though.
I give Boris and other leaders and officials a great deal of leeway for their efforts during covid. It certainly was unprecedented. I dont even care if they were flagrantly breaching guidance because they deserve to be a special case.
It's the sheer offensiveness of expecting us to simultaneously believe they were too stupid to know their own rules and yet also brilliant and on top of every detail that aggravates me.
It's because I respect them for the work they did, including Boris, that I don't buy these pathetic justifications.
Yes, it's Boris. Yes, he's a liar. But Boris, like all of us, is human.
He was manifestly unfit to do the job, before, during and after covid.
As I routinely said before, during and after. I'm not exactly a Boris fan. I was not a fan when some people who are now against him were for him (because he delivered Brexit).
But the weight of those decisions would probably have destroyed me, even if I had not been critically ill with Covid,
I hope that it would not have made you into a lying deceitful git though.
After all, Covid didn't make BoJo a lying deceitful git.
As someone who has fairly consistently criticised Johnson during his PMship, I would like to add a few grams to counter the tonnes of weight in the chorus of negative comments below:
I have never had to make such weighty decisions, potentially affecting the imminent health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of people, as Johnson had during the Covid crisis. I have only once been seriously ill in hospital (and then, I don't think it was as ill as he was) and then it took me months to recover), I did not need to come out and run the country.
I daresay this comment will get pounced on by the BDS squad, the Boris-was-useful-for-Brexit-but-not-now group, or the I-hate-everyone-in-power-who-does-not-wear-my-coloiur-rosette Neanderthals, but he was under tremendous personal and public stress at the time. I doubt any PM has been under such pressure for seventy years.
Yes, it's Boris. Yes, he's a liar. But Boris, like all of us, is human.
(dons flameproof suit)
Maybe. But he certainly wasn't under such pressure when he allegedly lied to Parliament. Which is what this hearing is about. Not about the rule breaking per se. If he'd come out and said "I was under pressure, I knew people were breaking the rules, sorry" he wouldn't be before this committee.
What doesn't make any sense from Boris Johnson's #Partygate evidence to #PrivilegesCommittee is how the structural, physical design of No10 means you have to drink at work meetings
Getting bored with this Privileges Committee now, so off for a pint.
They're all dancing on the head of a pin, losing the big picture, and getting bogged down in semantic detail. The answer to the question "did Boris know that he was breaking the rules and guidance, and did he therefore deliberately mislead Parliament?" is so stunningly clear that my grandchild has answered it correctly.
Break: ERG number crunching shows @RishiSunak needed opposition MPs to get his Northern Ireland deal passed. There were 48 Conservative abstentions which they say = 24 no votes. Add that to 22 actual No votes and you have 46 No votes which = loss of government majority
Thats a super-f**king leap to assume all abstentions would be no votes.
He is not saying they are no votes but saying 48 abstentions is equivalent to 24 no votes when it comes to the count. That is an abstention is worth half of going through the opponents lobby.
Yep, and it's a bollocks argument.
I haven't heard or read what was said. There is a difference between claiming people who abstained voted no (or even on average half of them were of this view) which I agree is bollocks if that was said, but the mathematical effect of abstaining is exactly that when it comes to the count. Of course if there was any pairing then any of those are cancelled out of such a calculation.
If he was just saying there were 22 No votes and 48 abstentions (excluding any pairs) that is equivalent to a loss of 46 votes.
Break: ERG number crunching shows @RishiSunak needed opposition MPs to get his Northern Ireland deal passed. There were 48 Conservative abstentions which they say = 24 no votes. Add that to 22 actual No votes and you have 46 No votes which = loss of government majority
Thats a super-f**king leap to assume all abstentions would be no votes.
He is not saying they are no votes but saying 48 abstentions is equivalent to 24 no votes when it comes to the count. That is an abstention is worth half of going through the opponents lobby.
Yep, and it's a bollocks argument.
I haven't heard or read what was said. There is a difference between claiming people who abstained voted no (or even on average half of them were of this view) which I agree is bollocks if that was said, but the mathematical effect of abstaining is exactly that when it comes to the count. Of course if there was any pairing then any of those are cancelled out of such a calculation.
If he was just saying there were 22 No votes and 48 abstentions (excluding any pairs) that is equivalent to a loss of 46 votes.
The 48 abstentions includes pairs, that's the problem.
For those not keeping up with the testimony AND Dominic Cummings liveblog, the latter has accused Johnson of repeatedly misleading the committee
The problem with Cummings is that if you were saying he was a liar earlier, when he had some power, why treat his statements as truthful now?
A hundred times this. The left/Remainers relying on Cummings is laughable.
And you believing Boris Johnson is laughable to a much greater extent
Another falsehood from you, I'm afraid.
You do seem like one of his last redoubt apologists on the basis of the evidence submitted in your pack.
Have you now seen the light, and realised he is indeed, what many people have understood for a very long time, that he is, how can I put it to you, a lying incompetent twat of the first order?
Break: ERG number crunching shows @RishiSunak needed opposition MPs to get his Northern Ireland deal passed. There were 48 Conservative abstentions which they say = 24 no votes. Add that to 22 actual No votes and you have 46 No votes which = loss of government majority
Thats a super-f**king leap to assume all abstentions would be no votes.
He is not saying they are no votes but saying 48 abstentions is equivalent to 24 no votes when it comes to the count. That is an abstention is worth half of going through the opponents lobby.
Yep, and it's a bollocks argument.
I haven't heard or read what was said. There is a difference between claiming people who abstained voted no (or even on average half of them were of this view) which I agree is bollocks if that was said, but the mathematical effect of abstaining is exactly that when it comes to the count. Of course if there was any pairing then any of those are cancelled out of such a calculation.
If he was just saying there were 22 No votes and 48 abstentions (excluding any pairs) that is equivalent to a loss of 46 votes.
The 48 abstentions includes pairs, that's the problem.
The bigger picture is the HOC voted overwhelmingly for the WF by 515 to 29 and it will be enacted
Johnson’s defenestration today paves the way nicely for the return of Truss.
Who
Liz Truss. The greatest political mind of this or any other generation whose return to power will fund my retirement.
Her vote against the Windsor Framework hints at the scale of her ambitions.
Well she has already got rid of one monarch.
Unlike King Charles I though who Cromwell did remove, King Charles III had removed Truss within a month of becoming monarch and replaced her with Sunak as PM
@KateEMcCann Johnson arguing he didn't distinguish between rules and guidance in Commons as 'public would have expected us to follow the guidance as strictly as the rules' BUT earlier he said the guidance only needed to be followed "where possible" when asked about people gathering together
Johnson claims he believes that all other events he attended must have been within the rules while he was there, and only became against the rules after he left. And that is why he never told the Commons they took place.
Johnson’s defenestration today paves the way nicely for the return of Truss.
Who
Liz Truss. The greatest political mind of this or any other generation whose return to power will fund my retirement.
Under Truss the Conservatives were heading for 0-50 seats before she resigned, now under Sunak the Conservatives have at least recovered to 150-200 seats
"Jeff Witts @JeffWitts Replying to @duncancbaker and @BritainElects In the example you quoted, the party that won only received 41% of the votes so they don't represent the will of the people. 59% of those voting are denied representation by FPTP hence PR is a fairer system."
For those not keeping up with the testimony AND Dominic Cummings liveblog, the latter has accused Johnson of repeatedly misleading the committee
The problem with Cummings is that if you were saying he was a liar earlier, when he had some power, why treat his statements as truthful now?
A hundred times this. The left/Remainers relying on Cummings is laughable.
And you believing Boris Johnson is laughable to a much greater extent
Another falsehood from you, I'm afraid.
You do seem like one of his last redoubt apologists on the basis of the evidence submitted in your pack.
Have you now seen the light, and realised he is indeed, what many people have understood for a very long time, that he is, how can I put it to you, a lying incompetent twat of the first order?
I have always thought that
(a) he introduced rules he believed to be bullshit (b) he knowingly broke those rules (c) he did so because he believed the rules were bullshit (d) therefore he lied to the Commons
So I don't know where "now seen the light" comes from.
Where I differ from most people is that I blame him for point (a) not point (d), which is just him being a politician.
Speaking of parties, now with no COVID restrictions to cramp the style of a PM who is NOT BJ, gotta assume that one heck of a shindig is just getting going tonight at No. 10?
For those not keeping up with the testimony AND Dominic Cummings liveblog, the latter has accused Johnson of repeatedly misleading the committee
The problem with Cummings is that if you were saying he was a liar earlier, when he had some power, why treat his statements as truthful now?
A hundred times this. The left/Remainers relying on Cummings is laughable.
And you believing Boris Johnson is laughable to a much greater extent
Another falsehood from you, I'm afraid.
You do seem like one of his last redoubt apologists on the basis of the evidence submitted in your pack.
Have you now seen the light, and realised he is indeed, what many people have understood for a very long time, that he is, how can I put it to you, a lying incompetent twat of the first order?
I have always thought that
(a) he introduced rules he believed to be bullshit (b) he knowingly broke those rules (c) he did so because he believed the rules were bullshit (d) therefore he lied to the Commons
So I don't know where "now seen the light" comes from.
Where I differ from most people is that I blame him for point (a) not point (d), which is just him being a politician.
You think it is OK for politicians to lie to parliament? I can assure you that goes against conventions going back centuries
Sunak is definitely upping his game. A more pragmatic and less ideologically Thatcherite approach to the strikes, improved Commons performances, and a general sense of him growing into the role.
Some partial improvements in the polls as a result ; it won't be enough to win the Tories the next election, but he might be the only force that could save them from a terrible reduction in seats , and rescue them from irrelevance.
Why not? There is 14 months plus to go. He is near level-pegging with Starmer on Best PM rating and he clearly has momentum. Starmer, OTOH, hasn't really done a huge amount when it comes to the voters for a while.
I have been wondering if there has been a chance in the number 10 team no one noticed. There’s sees to be a grip on Government affairs we haven’t see since the Coalition.
"Grip" is coincidentally one of Sunak's favourite pieces of policy wonk jargon.
This is why to the Russians the war in Ukraine may feel like WW3. Masses of new war graves are appearing. Putin doesn't care though, anything to stay in power a moment longer.
A huge queue is shown by a local resident in a new cemetery in Vladivostok, Russian Far East. According to them, there was not a single grave in this location just in December. Mobilisation in effect. https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1638539925946617859
If Johnson speaks any longer, I fear he may reach for the defence: "I didn't think it was a party because I was always told it isn't a party until the strippers arrive".
Johnson’s defenestration today paves the way nicely for the return of Truss.
Who
Liz Truss. The greatest political mind of this or any other generation whose return to power will fund my retirement.
Under Truss the Conservatives were heading for 0-50 seats before she resigned, now under Sunak the Conservatives have at least recovered to 150-200 seats
You've fallen into her trap. She's like a pool hustler. By feigning ineptitude in her opening frame she has tempted Sunak and Starmer into the game, disguising her real talent. Now they are off guard she will beat them both, handsomely, like Paul Newman beat Jackie Gleason.
As someone who has fairly consistently criticised Johnson during his PMship, I would like to add a few grams to counter the tonnes of weight in the chorus of negative comments below:
I have never had to make such weighty decisions, potentially affecting the imminent health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of people, as Johnson had during the Covid crisis. I have only once been seriously ill in hospital (and then, I don't think it was as ill as he was) and then it took me months to recover), I did not need to come out and run the country.
I daresay this comment will get pounced on by the BDS squad, the Boris-was-useful-for-Brexit-but-not-now group, or the I-hate-everyone-in-power-who-does-not-wear-my-coloiur-rosette Neanderthals, but he was under tremendous personal and public stress at the time. I doubt any PM has been under such pressure for seventy years.
Yes, it's Boris. Yes, he's a liar. But Boris, like all of us, is human.
(dons flameproof suit)
I do agree that he was in charge at a very difficult time and I am in no doubt that it wasnt easy.
But it doesn’t excuse him the p*ss poor handling of the situation from his end. He literally had one job on this front - be transparent and follow the rules. The fact that he couldn’t do either speaks volumes for who he is as a person.
It's not even about that, though.
If he'd fessed up when this first cropped he'd very likely have been forgiven. (Though people like me would probably still have despised him.)
He's being questioned about lying about it to Parliament.
For those not keeping up with the testimony AND Dominic Cummings liveblog, the latter has accused Johnson of repeatedly misleading the committee
The problem with Cummings is that if you were saying he was a liar earlier, when he had some power, why treat his statements as truthful now?
A hundred times this. The left/Remainers relying on Cummings is laughable.
And you believing Boris Johnson is laughable to a much greater extent
Another falsehood from you, I'm afraid.
You do seem like one of his last redoubt apologists on the basis of the evidence submitted in your pack.
Have you now seen the light, and realised he is indeed, what many people have understood for a very long time, that he is, how can I put it to you, a lying incompetent twat of the first order?
I have always thought that
(a) he introduced rules he believed to be bullshit (b) he knowingly broke those rules (c) he did so because he believed the rules were bullshit (d) therefore he lied to the Commons
So I don't know where "now seen the light" comes from.
Where I differ from most people is that I blame him for point (a) not point (d), which is just him being a politician.
You think it is OK for politicians to lie to parliament? I can assure you that goes against conventions going back centuries
Well all of a to d are bad. But a is in my view the worst.
Break: ERG number crunching shows @RishiSunak needed opposition MPs to get his Northern Ireland deal passed. There were 48 Conservative abstentions which they say = 24 no votes. Add that to 22 actual No votes and you have 46 No votes which = loss of government majority
Thats a super-f**king leap to assume all abstentions would be no votes.
He is not saying they are no votes but saying 48 abstentions is equivalent to 24 no votes when it comes to the count. That is an abstention is worth half of going through the opponents lobby.
Yep, and it's a bollocks argument.
I haven't heard or read what was said. There is a difference between claiming people who abstained voted no (or even on average half of them were of this view) which I agree is bollocks if that was said, but the mathematical effect of abstaining is exactly that when it comes to the count. Of course if there was any pairing then any of those are cancelled out of such a calculation.
If he was just saying there were 22 No votes and 48 abstentions (excluding any pairs) that is equivalent to a loss of 46 votes.
The 48 abstentions includes pairs, that's the problem.
I think "pairing" is a red herring here as it refers to an arrangement between Government and Opposition whips' offices whereby the parties are whipped in different directions but issue the same number of "pink slips" for absence to MPs who can't make it in order to vote with the whip (or would find it inconvenient). The pink slip (don't think it's called that but this is the principle) essentially says you had every intention of voting the required way but had a matched leave of absence with someone whipped the other way.
In this case, the major parties were whipped in the same direction so no scope for pairing as your whip cannot issue a pink slip without anyone whipped the other way to pair with.
As someone who has fairly consistently criticised Johnson during his PMship, I would like to add a few grams to counter the tonnes of weight in the chorus of negative comments below:
I have never had to make such weighty decisions, potentially affecting the imminent health and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of people, as Johnson had during the Covid crisis. I have only once been seriously ill in hospital (and then, I don't think it was as ill as he was) and then it took me months to recover), I did not need to come out and run the country.
I daresay this comment will get pounced on by the BDS squad, the Boris-was-useful-for-Brexit-but-not-now group, or the I-hate-everyone-in-power-who-does-not-wear-my-coloiur-rosette Neanderthals, but he was under tremendous personal and public stress at the time. I doubt any PM has been under such pressure for seventy years.
Yes, it's Boris. Yes, he's a liar. But Boris, like all of us, is human.
(dons flameproof suit)
Yeah I think the stuff on here and elsewhere is over the top. I apply the “there but for the grace of God” theory. Had I been working long hours in Number 10 during Covid and someone suggested a few beers in the garden before I went home, I am sure I would have said yes. As a manager I am sure I’d have approved them and joined them. So I don’t think this should be the end of him as an MP.
But I am not the PM and I did not introduce those laws.
As a PM or aspirant PM, this is the end. Any other PM in my lifetime wound have banned all booze and anything that was vaguely fun from the building while those measures were in place. They’d have been puritan about it.
And for clarity, again, like most people I don’t care about lying to Parliament. It happens all the time.
Johnson says he's not going to name one official who apparently told him rules hadn't been broken as she's asked for anonymity. Committee tells him his lawyers will have to provide it in writing.
He really is getting better at politics - what possible explanation is there for this being published now? PM Rishi Sunak publishes details of tax paid
Bojo’s defence easily the best since Lieutenant George called Private Baldrick as his main witness in the case of the murder of Speckled Jim by the Flanders pigeon murderer.
@IanDunt Carter devastating. Johnson's submission quoted from workplace guidance, saying that where guidelines could not be followed in full, businesses should consider whether that activity needed to continue "for the business to operate".
@IanDunt "Are you saying you thought these gatherings were so critical to the functioning of government that it was permissible to hold them even if they couldn't be socially distanced?" Johnson: "The short answer is yes."
@IanDunt That really must be considered utterly preposterous. I mean, one of them is his birthday.
@IanDunt Carter asks what mitigations were put in place as required by the guidance. Johnson says they didn't touch each other's pens.
@IanDunt This is a thing that is really happening. He really said that.
Johnson's defence is about as convincing as the apocryphal story that culminates in the sentence: "Officer, I was merely urinating in the field when the ewe backed onto me".
This is going to be hours and hours of "the dog ate my homework" concluding with the finding that the dog in question doesn't like the taste of paper, isn't it?
They seem to be trying to decide between fool and knave.
Boris on why he didn’t correct the record sooner: “no one was advising me to correct the record”
This is the same category of error as his swearing on a bible - most people tell the truth even when they do not swear that way (and most do not need to at such a hearing), and most people can have agency to do things without being advised to do so. Especially if they are also someone who has the self confidence to say they should be the one running the country, and actually was at the time.
Still, stubbornly insisting on what he believed is about the only strategy he has, and if he can stick to it proving wilfullness is near impossible.
This is going to be hours and hours of "the dog ate my homework" concluding with the finding that the dog in question doesn't like the taste of paper, isn't it?
They seem to be trying to decide between fool and knave.
I would say it's close with fool just edging it.
Strangely compulsive though.
I'm mildly surprised how completely he has been skewered. He's not quite the greased piglet of legend.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
This is going to be hours and hours of "the dog ate my homework" concluding with the finding that the dog in question doesn't like the taste of paper, isn't it?
They seem to be trying to decide between fool and knave.
I would say it's close with fool just edging it.
Strangely compulsive though.
I'm mildly surprised how completely he has been skewered. He's not quite the greased piglet of legend.
The greased piglet routine works when everyone thinks they are in on the joke.
It doesn't work when they are the butt of the joke...
He really is getting better at politics - what possible explanation is there for this being published now? PM Rishi Sunak publishes details of tax paid
We'll be on to his next defence soon (I know he referenced it at start) - that because person X is mean to you in a hearing, that means they are biased. When in fact it is possible people can have said mean things before but still demonstrate objectivity - they just need to be careful.
In the sense it will remind people he is stonkingly wealthy then any release may be considered 'bad'. I doubt opposition and media will fail to make a story even if he paid every penny in tax he owes (by which I mean without all those legal but bullshit methods to evade).
Who cares if he is rich? He seems to be competent, which is more important.
Johnson's defence is about as convincing as the apocryphal story that culminates in the sentence: "Officer, I was merely urinating in the field when the ewe backed onto me".
For those not keeping up with the testimony AND Dominic Cummings liveblog, the latter has accused Johnson of repeatedly misleading the committee
The problem with Cummings is that if you were saying he was a liar earlier, when he had some power, why treat his statements as truthful now?
A hundred times this. The left/Remainers relying on Cummings is laughable.
And you believing Boris Johnson is laughable to a much greater extent
Another falsehood from you, I'm afraid.
You do seem like one of his last redoubt apologists on the basis of the evidence submitted in your pack.
Have you now seen the light, and realised he is indeed, what many people have understood for a very long time, that he is, how can I put it to you, a lying incompetent twat of the first order?
I have always thought that
(a) he introduced rules he believed to be bullshit (b) he knowingly broke those rules (c) he did so because he believed the rules were bullshit (d) therefore he lied to the Commons
So I don't know where "now seen the light" comes from.
Where I differ from most people is that I blame him for point (a) not point (d), which is just him being a politician.
You think it is OK for politicians to lie to parliament? I can assure you that goes against conventions going back centuries
I think politicians do lie to parliament and I don't think "conventions" can stop them. And given their last period in office, I think Labour are in no position to get on their high horse about it.
Comments
For those not keeping up with the testimony AND Dominic Cummings liveblog, the latter has accused Johnson of repeatedly misleading the committee
But the weight of those decisions would probably have destroyed me, even if I had not been critically ill with Covid,
It's the sheer offensiveness of expecting us to simultaneously believe they were too stupid to know their own rules and yet also brilliant and on top of every detail that aggravates me.
It's because I respect them for the work they did, including Boris, that I don't buy these pathetic justifications.
He's been that all along.
https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1638574982514065410
Cummings is claiming BoZo is lying.
It's not a question of either or. They are both habitual liars.
"I'm melting! I'm melting!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopdD9Cu-So
What doesn't make any sense from Boris Johnson's #Partygate evidence to #PrivilegesCommittee is how the structural, physical design of No10 means you have to drink at work meetings
They're all dancing on the head of a pin, losing the big picture, and getting bogged down in semantic detail. The answer to the question "did Boris know that he was breaking the rules and guidance, and did he therefore deliberately mislead Parliament?" is so stunningly clear that my grandchild has answered it correctly.
If he was just saying there were 22 No votes and 48 abstentions (excluding any pairs) that is equivalent to a loss of 46 votes.
Have you now seen the light, and realised he is indeed, what many people have understood for a very long time, that he is, how can I put it to you, a lying incompetent twat of the first order?
Johnson arguing he didn't distinguish between rules and guidance in Commons as 'public would have expected us to follow the guidance as strictly as the rules' BUT earlier he said the guidance only needed to be followed "where possible" when asked about people gathering together
Most curious to have essential and necessary work events however where attendance is optional and you are expected to bring your own booze.
Johnson claims he believes that all other events he attended must have been within the rules while he was there, and only became against the rules after he left. And that is why he never told the Commons they took place.
The last 20 minutes basically ended Boris Johnson's political career
Does anyone disagree?
@Peston
Boris Johnson just said holding the parties was "essential" to the functioning of government. Well
EDIT: In fairness, if I had to work with/for that **nt, I would want to drink
Emperor Xi Jinping paid a royal visit to Pu Tin, regional governor of the northern Chinese province of Ruxia.
https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1638570114026029057
TLDR - Putin is buying himself time in power by sacrificing Russia to China.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1636745843767164928
"Jeff Witts
@JeffWitts
Replying to
@duncancbaker
and
@BritainElects
In the example you quoted, the party that won only received 41% of the votes so they don't represent the will of the people. 59% of those voting are denied representation by FPTP hence PR is a fairer system."
(a) he introduced rules he believed to be bullshit
(b) he knowingly broke those rules
(c) he did so because he believed the rules were bullshit
(d) therefore he lied to the Commons
So I don't know where "now seen the light" comes from.
Where I differ from most people is that I blame him for point (a) not point (d), which is just him being a politician.
Can hear 'em cackling, even here in Seattle.
“Your mum will die soon but you can’t say goodbye because it’s against the rules. Sorry about that.”
That seems really harsh surely you can make an exception??
“Yes, but only if she’s a really talented SPAD and team morale is likely to be affected if there’s no leaving drinks.”
It was over months ago.
From the archive
More likely, he will cling on and try to fight back. In which case, the humiliation is just beginning.
{Evil cackle}
"I'm sorry, I can't give you her name"
"Thank you
BernardBoris"As currently seen on el cheapo American TV, still shilling BUT in lower gear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEsEEr65FGo
A huge queue is shown by a local resident in a new cemetery in Vladivostok, Russian Far East. According to them, there was not a single grave in this location just in December. Mobilisation in effect.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1638539925946617859
If Johnson speaks any longer, I fear he may reach for the defence: "I didn't think it was a party because I was always told it isn't a party until the strippers arrive".
If he'd fessed up when this first cropped he'd very likely have been forgiven. (Though people like me would probably still have despised him.)
He's being questioned about lying about it to Parliament.
now
Tax returns of @RishiSunak have just been published on Gov.uk
@SkyNews
In this case, the major parties were whipped in the same direction so no scope for pairing as your whip cannot issue a pink slip without anyone whipped the other way to pair with.
But I am not the PM and I did not introduce those laws.
As a PM or aspirant PM, this is the end. Any other PM in my lifetime wound have banned all booze and anything that was vaguely fun from the building while those measures were in place. They’d have been puritan about it.
And for clarity, again, like most people I don’t care about lying to Parliament. It happens all the time.
Johnson says he's not going to name one official who apparently told him rules hadn't been broken as she's asked for anonymity. Committee tells him his lawyers will have to provide it in writing.
@RMCunliffe
She came *this close* to asking him if he'd made these officials up - if they were real people or if they existed only in his imagination
PM Rishi Sunak publishes details of tax paid
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65040300
Carter devastating. Johnson's submission quoted from workplace guidance, saying that where guidelines could not be followed in full, businesses should consider whether that activity needed to continue "for the business to operate".
@IanDunt
"Are you saying you thought these gatherings were so critical to the functioning of government that it was permissible to hold them even if they couldn't be socially distanced?" Johnson: "The short answer is yes."
@IanDunt
That really must be considered utterly preposterous. I mean, one of them is his birthday.
@IanDunt
Carter asks what mitigations were put in place as required by the guidance. Johnson says they didn't touch each other's pens.
@IanDunt
This is a thing that is really happening. He really said that.
I would say it's close with fool just edging it.
This is the same category of error as his swearing on a bible - most people tell the truth even when they do not swear that way (and most do not need to at such a hearing), and most people can have agency to do things without being advised to do so. Especially if they are also someone who has the self confidence to say they should be the one running the country, and actually was at the time.
Still, stubbornly insisting on what he believed is about the only strategy he has, and if he can stick to it proving wilfullness is near impossible.
Is BJ yet another "witness for the defense" whose testimony directly lead to his guilty verdict?
Plan 1 (1998-2011) repayment threshold rising to £25k from April ‘24
Aiui, most (all?) of these loans have now been sold off. Investors probably sitting on a hefty loss…
Johnson has shifted
from "everyone assured me the rules had been followed"
to "many people assured me the rules had been followed"
to "nobody advised me that rules had been broken"
in half an afternoon. ~AA
I'm mildly surprised how completely he has been skewered. He's not quite the greased piglet of legend.
Surely his learned counsel MUST have cautioned him, of all clients, against using THAT word?
It doesn't work when they are the butt of the joke...