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.
If people dislike a politician they hold things against them they wouldn't with one they like, and vice versa. People always call Tory PMs out of touch, and in an environment where people are already unhappy with the government Rishi being so super rich can and will be used against him, directly or otherwise. If he starts doing better generally then it won't work so well.
I don't care, I take a Senator Gracchus from Gladiator approach to these matters.
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.
Indeed. As entertaining as this afternoon is it should never be forgotten that Johnson's lies didn't lead directly to anyone's death... unlike Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell...
@IanDunt "Mr Johnson, did any government law officer or any member of the govt legal dept, such as the attorney general, or any one of the hundreds of solicitors or barristers who work for the govt, did any one of those give you assurance?"
@IanDunt Johnson: "The short answer is no they didn't. but neither did I seek assurances from them."
@IanDunt But you know when he did check with a lawyer? When his arse was on the line because of this committee inquiry. Look at that top grade, very expensive, paid for by the taxpayer, top grade fucking silk sitting behind him.
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.
You cannot stop people lying to Parliament, but we can still make it a big deal if a lie can be proven. It's still, for now, regarded as a line that should not be crossed - that's why politicians actually rarely lie outright. They obfuscate, they cherry pick, they omit, they spin, but they rarely simply lie.
Someone lying before is not excuse for lying now, or for not continuing to regard it as a big deal when it emerges.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
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.
This is true, but there are other votes today so pairing could be in place for the whole day. And even if this vote wasn't officially paired, given the Labour abstention list was nearly as long as the Tory list and given status of the MPs on each, it's pretty clear that at least unofficial pairing was in place.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
All politicians lie. Most of them however have enough sense not to lie to Parliament. Johnson was stupid enough to think he could treat Parliament in the same way he treated the rest of the world. It is both reassuring and enjoyable to see him proved wrong.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
It is an area where people are worn down by evasions and half truths, we expect it. That doesn't mean we should just give up and stop even attempting to hold people accountable for their words.
No, we should remain angry, and get angrier than we usually are. It's because we don't get angry enough, on a non partisan basis, that their standards have been allowed to degrade to the point we are expected to swallow absolute absurdities - see even things like the SNP trying to explain away their direct lie about membership numbers.
'Ministers lie a lot, so who cares when they are actually caught in a lie?' is a ridiculous position, but seems to be your suggestion.
I don't want them to lie at all (though of course spin and omission without direct lying is unavoidable to some degree), but if I am to swallow a ridiculous claim that someone is titanically stupid but also was a fantastic leader at the time (presumably his position)? I just cannot do it.
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.
You cannot stop people lying to Parliament, but we can still make it a big deal if a lie can be proven. It's still, for now, regarded as a line that should not be crossed - that's why politicians actually rarely lie outright. They obfuscate, they cherry pick, they omit, they spin, but they rarely simply lie.
Someone lying before is not excuse for lying now, or for not continuing to regard it as a big deal when it emerges.
Which is fair enough. But even if it's a big deal, I still think introducing restrictions which he believed to be bullshit is a much bigger deal.
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.
This is true, but there are other votes today so pairing could be in place for the whole day. And even if this vote wasn't officially paired, given the Labour abstention list was nearly as long as the Tory list and given status of the MPs on each, it's pretty clear that at least unofficial pairing was in place.
But if there was "unofficial" pairing that MUST mean that either the Tory MP in the pair planned to break their party's whip or (much less likely given none have concerns as far as I'm aware) the Labour MP planned to do so. You cannot pair, officially or unofficially, unless the other person plans to vote the other way.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
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.
(Snip)
I agree. Yet look at the mess Starmer got himself in, during a totally unforced event.
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.
I hardly think , suitcases full of booze, pissing it up every night , spewing up the walls, shagging all over the place constitutes signing off a beer after work, especially given you had enacted draconian laws that prevented any other person doing it at work or anywhere else.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
It is an area where people are worn down by evasions and half truths, we expect it. That doesn't mean we should just give up and stop even attempting to hold people accountable for their words.
No, we should remain angry, and get angrier than we usually are. It's because we don't get angry enough, on a non partisan basis, that their standards have been allowed to degrade to the point we are expected to swallow absolute absurdities - see even things like the SNP trying to explain away their direct lie about membership numbers.
'Ministers lie a lot, so who cares when they are actually caught in a lie?' is a ridiculous position, but seems to be your suggestion.
I don't want them to lie at all (though of course spin and omission without direct lying is unavoidable to some degree), but if I am to swallow a ridiculous claim that someone is titanically stupid but also was a fantastic leader at the time (presumably his position)? I just cannot do it.
I don’t disagree in principle, I think the ship has mostly sailed though, and it’s now a bit late to try and hold anyone to account for the absolute crap spoken in the Commons from the Treasury bench. But if we do, it must be everyone and we can’t pretend Boris is/was massively unique. He’s just crap at the cover up and the alliance building that gets you forgiven.
Costa: "So that line, Mr Johnson, the assurance you relied on in the Commons on December 8th, was initially developed as no more than a media line to hold off press enquiries wasn't it?" Oh shit.
The last 20 minutes basically ended Boris Johnson's political career
Does anyone disagree?
Me.
It was over months ago.
I agree. There's something unwholesome about this.
He's been a terrible PM but no reason to humiliate him further
I find this attitude rather remarkable, the same as those who think Trump should not be prosecuted for anything even if he has committed clear crimes (some of the cases themselves may well be less obvious and worthy than others).
Boris has not faced any consequences for his behaviour. Facing consequences is not humiliation. That's like those silly people on twitter who called helping Ukraine defend itself or NATO expanding 'humiliating' Russia.
I think proving Boris knowingly misled Parliament is surprisingly hard, since he will swear tooth and nail that no matter how obvious it was that rules were broken, he genuinely believed otherwise, and we cannot see inside his head. A sanction with a short suspension, below trigger threshold, would not seem inappropriate, nor disproportionate - if they can provide contempt by wilfully acting so, a longer sanction is appropriate.
I don't like Boris but can envisage a scenario where the case is simply not made.
But being held to account through this process, requiring him to justify himself, is not itself humiliation. It's not unfair. It's not disproportionate.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
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.
I hardly think , suitcases full of booze, pissing it up every night , spewing up the walls, shagging all over the place constitutes signing off a beer after work, especially given you had enacted draconian laws that prevented any other person doing it at work or anywhere else.
Yes there is that. I think some (perhaps most) of the people involved seem to have had had a few drinks and that’s my “there but for the grace of god” group. But others (shagging on a child’s swing whilst doing Ket and swigging from a bottle of vodka) have zero judgement.
*the needle moves inexorably towards suspension that comes with voter recall....*
I do hope so. I also hope that this also helps to quash the idea that it is OK (or indeed the norm as some posters seem to believe ) to lie to parliament.
Boris effectively says "If you find against me, you are partial and a kangeroo court out to get me...."
Way to go, Boris.
Well he already made that clear before it started, and anyone who has ever investigated someone knows that that is what a lot of people claim. If you let someone off the complainant says you ignored them/were biased in favour of the subject, and vice versa.
He'll need more than allegations of selective use of evidence and some past comments to prove that, as no doubt he would accept his own words against political opponents do not eliminate his ability to judge matters objectively.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
Costa with the killshot: "How can it be that Mr Doyle, your trusted adviser, the person whose assurance you relied on in the House of Commons, was himself clearly doubtful about the compliance of this gathering with the rules but you continued to say you were not."
He has had a chance to further correct the record, but doesn't take it. He has shown no contrition, has not backed off one inch.
"I see no reason to alter what I said on May 25th...."
This is the thing about him - he's made some half hearted apologies, but his own defences seem to indicate they are not genuine. See how he is still whinging about getting fined, which undermine the responses he made to that at the time. So he is stuck with accepting as minimal position as he possibly can, even if it makes him look silly (eg I was there in person, but was totally unable to make a judgement call myself about the guidance I banged on about day in and day out, so took the word of officials that all was gravy).
There are probably enough MPs to vote to sanction him if the Committee recommends it but for sake of the martyr complex he would develop it might be better if it is a shorter one.
My summary view of Johnson's evidence is the same as it was before he started: his case that the guidance allowed boozy non-socially distanced drinks events with no work being done is absurd and he's either lying that he thought it did or was reckless for asserting it.
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).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
It is an area where people are worn down by evasions and half truths, we expect it. That doesn't mean we should just give up and stop even attempting to hold people accountable for their words.
No, we should remain angry, and get angrier than we usually are. It's because we don't get angry enough, on a non partisan basis, that their standards have been allowed to degrade to the point we are expected to swallow absolute absurdities - see even things like the SNP trying to explain away their direct lie about membership numbers.
'Ministers lie a lot, so who cares when they are actually caught in a lie?' is a ridiculous position, but seems to be your suggestion.
I don't want them to lie at all (though of course spin and omission without direct lying is unavoidable to some degree), but if I am to swallow a ridiculous claim that someone is titanically stupid but also was a fantastic leader at the time (presumably his position)? I just cannot do it.
I don’t disagree in principle, I think the ship has mostly sailed though, and it’s now a bit late to try and hold anyone to account for the absolute crap spoken in the Commons from the Treasury bench. But if we do, it must be everyone and we can’t pretend Boris is/was massively unique. He’s just crap at the cover up and the alliance building that gets you forgiven.
But the first step in trying to address the problem is to deal with the immediate and egregious offenders, such as Boris at this very moment, not give him a pass until the next time someone does it, since they will just say 'Well what about Boris?' Instead, Ministers will know they have a genuine risk if they get too blatant with things.
You have to start somewhere. And when someone is particularly blatant about it a response is necessary.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
That depends on the omission. If you ask me in the House “how many GP surgeries have dangerous cladding” and I reply “none” whilst fully aware there are major problem with cladding in 500 health centres, and that you meant to refer to primary care more broadly but used an imprecise term; then I think it’s a lie. But technically it’s an omission.
I scratched my head for a silly example, but that sort of thing happens every week. Most days really.
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).
Released just after it is revealed that Keir Starmer had a personal law passed for his tax/pension arrangements.
Not a coincidence.
I'm looking forward to the Labour manifesto pledge to repeal the Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
It's not a distinction if the omission leads someone to believe something incorrect, and that was the intention of the omission. That's why we have lies by omission.
Not every omission would be a lie, but it can amount to it in effect.
@DPJHodges Big winner from today is Rishi Sunak. Rebellion squashed. Boris threat neutralised. Keir Starmer embroiled in pensions hypocrisy row. Might well be some more bottles opened in Downing Street tonight.
@DPJHodges Big winner from today is Rishi Sunak. Rebellion squashed. Boris threat neutralised. Keir Starmer embroiled in pensions hypocrisy row. Might well be some more bottles opened in Downing Street tonight.
Johnson happy to confirm that he has confidence in the fairness of the process as long as it exonerates him completely.
The funniest thing is when people make statements about kangaroo courts and biased determiners, and lots of people do, then they are exonerated, and suddenly we should trust the system they said was a complete fix.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
Except I did not say lying-by-omission, it is not the same thing.
OK, you want to believe all politicians are liars, which helps you justify defending Boris Johnson, and your probable support of him in the past. I know quite a few politicians and it is a slur to suggest they are all like him. If that kind of cynical belief helps you justify support of the worst PM of all time then I pity you.
@DPJHodges Big winner from today is Rishi Sunak. Rebellion squashed. Boris threat neutralised. Keir Starmer embroiled in pensions hypocrisy row. Might well be some more bottles opened in Downing Street tonight.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
It's not a distinction if the omission leads someone to believe something incorrect, and that was the intention of the omission. That's why we have lies by omission.
Not every omission would be a lie, but it can amount to it in effect.
Johnson happy to confirm that he has confidence in the fairness of the process as long as it exonerates him completely.
The funniest thing is when people make statements about kangaroo courts and biased determiners, and lots of people do, then they are exonerated, and suddenly we should trust the system they said was a complete fix.
Of course BoZo said the same thing about the Sue Gray report.
Wait for it to be published.
It totally exonerates me !!!
Except the bit that incriminates me. That bit can't be trusted...
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.
I hardly think , suitcases full of booze, pissing it up every night , spewing up the walls, shagging all over the place constitutes signing off a beer after work, especially given you had enacted draconian laws that prevented any other person doing it at work or anywhere else.
Yes there is that. I think some (perhaps most) of the people involved seem to have had had a few drinks and that’s my “there but for the grace of god” group. But others (shagging on a child’s swing whilst doing Ket and swigging from a bottle of vodka) have zero judgement.
Hold on. When did that happen? Which evidence bundle is that in?
No-one watching the quizzing of @BorisJohnson can be in any doubt that the committee will now conclude that he recklessly misled MPs by repeating & relying on assurances that rules and guidance had not been broken inside Downing Street 1/3
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
Except I did not say lying-by-omission, it is not the same thing.
OK, you want to believe all politicians are liars, which helps you justify defending Boris Johnson, and your probable support of him in the past. I know quite a few politicians and it is a slur to suggest they are all like him. If that kind of cynical belief helps you justify support of the worst PM of all time then I pity you.
Met hundreds of politicians. Never met one who wouldn’t lie to achieve their end goal.
None of which is meant to say Boris is right to do it himself, mind. Very clear on my views on him being unfit to be PM above. I came into this just explaining why “in the real world” no one cares about the lying to Parliament part.
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.
If people dislike a politician they hold things against them they wouldn't with one they like, and vice versa. People always call Tory PMs out of touch, and in an environment where people are already unhappy with the government Rishi being so super rich can and will be used against him, directly or otherwise. If he starts doing better generally then it won't work so well.
I don't care, I take a Senator Gracchus from Gladiator approach to these matters.
I was quite pleased he was rich - I considered it on balance to be of benefit, as he would not be interested in speaking engagements and all the other grubby preferments that give the appearance of resulting in massive Government contracts for KPMG and Deloitte.
With a more nuanced view now, I'm not sure that it does make Rishi less corruptible. I think had Rishi been some old money billionaire (we don't seem to have these so much in the UK as in the States), it could have worked in the way I suggested, but actually, the way it seems to work is that Rishi isn't fabulously and contentedly rich - his wife is. He is a well-off banker from humble beginnings, married to an heiress. Perhaps he even feels the need to keep up.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
Except I did not say lying-by-omission, it is not the same thing.
OK, you want to believe all politicians are liars, which helps you justify defending Boris Johnson, and your probable support of him in the past. I know quite a few politicians and it is a slur to suggest they are all like him. If that kind of cynical belief helps you justify support of the worst PM of all time then I pity you.
Met hundreds of politicians. Never met one who wouldn’t lie to achieve their end goal.
None of which is meant to say Boris is right to do it himself, mind. Very clear on my views on him being unfit to be PM above. I came into this just explaining why “in the real world” no one cares about the lying to Parliament part.
And to a point that is right - they're all at it and so on. But I do think the public retains some sense of proportion. It's like when politicians sell us a fantasy, a dream, on some policy or another, and we happily buy it. But at a certain point they push just that bit too far and people snap awake.
It's not the 'in parliament' bit that is leading to even a large proportion of Tory voters to disbelieve Boris's arguments. It's the implausibility of it.
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
That depends on the omission. If you ask me in the House “how many GP surgeries have dangerous cladding” and I reply “none” whilst fully aware there as major problem with cladding in 500 health centres, fully aware you
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.
I hardly think , suitcases full of booze, pissing it up every night , spewing up the walls, shagging all over the place constitutes signing off a beer after work, especially given you had enacted draconian laws that prevented any other person doing it at work or anywhere else.
Yes there is that. I think some (perhaps most) of the people involved seem to have had had a few drinks and that’s my “there but for the grace of god” group. But others (shagging on a child’s swing whilst doing Ket and swigging from a bottle of vodka) have zero judgement.
Hold on. When did that happen? Which evidence bundle is that in?
I might have conflated a couple of things, but they were all spoken about when it was coming out weren’t they?
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.
To lie to parliament is contempt. The vast majority of MPs know this, and while they may obfuscate or avoid a question, they do not lie. The popularly held idea that all politicians lie to parliament is what Boris Johnson would like you to believe.
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Ministers of all colours knowingly lie a lot, usually by omission. They just usually don’t get found out. Maybe those of us least scandalised by the lying bit are the ones with more exposure to that reality?
Omitting to say something is not a lie. It is an important distinction.
The last 20 minutes basically ended Boris Johnson's political career
Does anyone disagree?
Me.
It was over months ago.
I agree. There's something unwholesome about this.
He's been a terrible PM but no reason to humiliate him further
I find this attitude rather remarkable, the same as those who think Trump should not be prosecuted for anything even if he has committed clear crimes (some of the cases themselves may well be less obvious and worthy than others).
Boris has not faced any consequences for his behaviour. Facing consequences is not humiliation. That's like those silly people on twitter who called helping Ukraine defend itself or NATO expanding 'humiliating' Russia.
I think proving Boris knowingly misled Parliament is surprisingly hard, since he will swear tooth and nail that no matter how obvious it was that rules were broken, he genuinely believed otherwise, and we cannot see inside his head. A sanction with a short suspension, below trigger threshold, would not seem inappropriate, nor disproportionate - if they can provide contempt by wilfully acting so, a longer sanction is appropriate.
I don't like Boris but can envisage a scenario where the case is simply not made.
But being held to account through this process, requiring him to justify himself, is not itself humiliation. It's not unfair. It's not disproportionate.
It's also only humiliating because he's so bang to rights - at least on being so casual with the truth of the matter and digging in to defend the indefensible even though proving it was wilful rather than being shambolic might be tricky to prove. The reason he's there is because he attempted to cling on by every means he could instead of doing the right thing. As some Tories on the committee pointed out, if he'd have either fessed up totally when the press revealed the parties, or gave a more measured response that caveated denials things were as bad as they looked with an acknowledgment rules might have been broken, he wouldn't be there. The Tories would've taken a political hit but then it would have been in the past and died as an issue. He might even still be PM.
And it's important to pursue to ensure future politicians behave better - as well as ensuring that MPs can hold ministers to account rather than have these battles in a partisan press that goes into bat for their side even when it's ludicrous to do so.
@IanDunt Harman: "Do you still want to assert that it was certainly the case when you were present at gatherings to wish staff farewell that the guidance had been followed at all times. Do you want to assert it to the committee and thereby assert it to the House?"
@IanDunt That last line is interesting. Is the insinuation that he is even now misleading the House? Like, as a meta act of committing the behaviour he is being investigated for while the investigation is happening.
MPs with "No Vote Recorded" on Windsor Framework Agreement = 98
Conservative = 47 Adams, Nigel Allan, Lucy Ansell, Caroline Atherton, Sarah Bacon, Gareth Bacon, Mr Richard Brady, Sir Graham Bristow, Paul Buckland, Sir Robert Burns, Conor Butler, Rob Chishti, Rehman Davies, Mims Davies, Philip Dinenage, Dame Caroline Dines, Miss Sarah Dorries, Ms Nadine Elphicke, Mrs Natalie Foster, Kevin Grant, Mrs Helen Grundy, James Hall, Luke Hoare, Simon Jenkin, Sir Bernard Leigh, Sir Edward Lewis, Brandon Lewis, Sir Julian Longhi, Marco McCartney, Karl McPartland, Stephen McVey, Esther Millar, Robin Miller, Dame Maria Moore, Damien Morris, Anne Marie Mundell, David Robertson, Mr Laurence Rosindell, Andrew Shapps, Grant Smith, Greg Smith, Henry Stevenson, Jane Stewart, Bob Villiers, Theresa Watling, Giles Webb, Suzanne Zahawi, Nadhim
Labour = 36 Abrahams, Debbie Ali, Rushanara Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena Antoniazzi, Tonia Brown, Ms Lyn Buck, Ms Karen Clark, Feryal Davies, Geraint Davies-Jones, Alex Dhesi, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dowd, Peter Fletcher, Colleen Fovargue, Yvonne Foy, Mary Kelly Gardiner, Barry Gill, Preet Kaur Harman, Ms Harriet Jarvis, Dan Kane, Mike Khan, Afzal Mahmood, Mr Khalid Mahmood, Shabana McDonagh, Siobhain Nandy, Lisa Phillipson, Bridget Pollard, Luke Qureshi, Yasmin Rayner, Angela Reed, Steve Rimmer, Ms Marie Smith, Nick Smyth, Karin Streeting, Wes Turner, Karl Western, Andrew Whittome, Nadia
Independents = 4 Ferrier, Margaret Knight, Julian Pincher, Christopher Webbe, Claudia
Alba = 2 Hanvey, Neale MacAskill, Kenny
Scottish National = 2 Cherry, Joanna Wishart, Pete
Liberal Democrat = 1 Moran, Layla
Social Democratic & Labour = 1 Hanna, Claire
Speaker & Deputy Speakers = 5 Hoyle, Sir Lindsay Evans, Mr Nigel Gale, Sir Roger Laing, Dame Eleanor Winterton, Dame Rosie
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.
If people dislike a politician they hold things against them they wouldn't with one they like, and vice versa. People always call Tory PMs out of touch, and in an environment where people are already unhappy with the government Rishi being so super rich can and will be used against him, directly or otherwise. If he starts doing better generally then it won't work so well.
I don't care, I take a Senator Gracchus from Gladiator approach to these matters.
I was quite pleased he was rich - I considered it on balance to be of benefit, as he would not be interested in speaking engagements and all the other grubby preferments that give the appearance of resulting in massive Government contracts for KPMG and Deloitte.
With a more nuanced view now, I'm not sure that it does make Rishi less corruptible. I think had Rishi been some old money billionaire (we don't seem to have these so much in the UK as in the States), it could have worked in the way I suggested, but actually, the way it seems to work is that Rishi isn't fabulously and contentedly rich - his wife is. He is a well-off banker from humble beginnings, married to an heiress. Perhaps he even feels the need to keep up.
We are all corruptible at some level. It doesn't have to be about money, remember MICE in espionage, the reasons someone might betray their country; : Money Ideology Compromise Ego
Or any combination thereof.
But I think the attacks on rishi over being rich are over-egged. Does he have a Stuatatory Instrument in his name, as Starmer does?
Comments
Hasn't he said it was vital for morale? No one else needed morale boosting apparently.
It would have caused a storm at the time, but he'd have been better off exempting No.10 from the regs.
Rishi paid more in capital gains tax in each of the three years than income tax.
I don't care, I take a Senator Gracchus from Gladiator approach to these matters.
"Mr Johnson, did any government law officer or any member of the govt legal dept, such as the attorney general, or any one of the hundreds of solicitors or barristers who work for the govt, did any one of those give you assurance?"
@IanDunt
Johnson: "The short answer is no they didn't. but neither did I seek assurances from them."
@IanDunt
But you know when he did check with a lawyer? When his arse was on the line because of this committee inquiry. Look at that top grade, very expensive, paid for by the taxpayer, top grade fucking silk sitting behind him.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1145059/PM_Rishi_Sunak_Tax_Summary_.pdf
Someone lying before is not excuse for lying now, or for not continuing to regard it as a big deal when it emerges.
Any predictions?
And BoE tomorrow?
Would you like to buy a bridge?
They aren't convinced AT ALL.
*the needle moves inexorably towards suspension that comes with voter recall....*
Boris Johnson now explaining that "at all times" actually meant "on 18th December" and not, in fact, at all times
Quite clear now that Boris Johnson watched Prince Andrew's catastrophic BBC interview and took performance notes for today
Pannick's expression as his client starts shouting at the committee. Well worth £220k.
I would have said at least £10m.
No, we should remain angry, and get angrier than we usually are. It's because we don't get angry enough, on a non partisan basis, that their standards have been allowed to degrade to the point we are expected to swallow absolute absurdities - see even things like the SNP trying to explain away their direct lie about membership numbers.
'Ministers lie a lot, so who cares when they are actually caught in a lie?' is a ridiculous position, but seems to be your suggestion.
I don't want them to lie at all (though of course spin and omission without direct lying is unavoidable to some degree), but if I am to swallow a ridiculous claim that someone is titanically stupid but also was a fantastic leader at the time (presumably his position)? I just cannot do it.
He's been a terrible PM but no reason to humiliate him further
Way to go, Boris.
Johnson happy to confirm that he has confidence in the fairness of the process as long as it exonerates him completely.
Costa: "So that line, Mr Johnson, the assurance you relied on in the Commons on December 8th, was initially developed as no more than a media line to hold off press enquiries wasn't it?" Oh shit.
Boris has not faced any consequences for his behaviour. Facing consequences is not humiliation. That's like those silly people on twitter who called helping Ukraine defend itself or NATO expanding 'humiliating' Russia.
I think proving Boris knowingly misled Parliament is surprisingly hard, since he will swear tooth and nail that no matter how obvious it was that rules were broken, he genuinely believed otherwise, and we cannot see inside his head. A sanction with a short suspension, below trigger threshold, would not seem inappropriate, nor disproportionate - if they can provide contempt by wilfully acting so, a longer sanction is appropriate.
I don't like Boris but can envisage a scenario where the case is simply not made.
But being held to account through this process, requiring him to justify himself, is not itself humiliation. It's not unfair. It's not disproportionate.
First, there's the necessary catharsis.
Next, there's the need to make sure that the charred remains of his reputation can't reassemble.
But mostly, he has a lifetime of getting away with it to pay back.
And finally, if roles were reversed, it's what he'd do to you.
He has had a chance to further correct the record, but doesn't take it. He has shown no contrition, has not backed off one inch.
"I see no reason to alter what I said on May 25th...."
He'll need more than allegations of selective use of evidence and some past comments to prove that, as no doubt he would accept his own words against political opponents do not eliminate his ability to judge matters objectively.
Costa with the killshot: "How can it be that Mr Doyle, your trusted adviser, the person whose assurance you relied on in the House of Commons, was himself clearly doubtful about the compliance of this gathering with the rules but you continued to say you were not."
There are probably enough MPs to vote to sanction him if the Committee recommends it but for sake of the martyr complex he would develop it might be better if it is a shorter one.
My summary view of Johnson's evidence is the same as it was before he started: his case that the guidance allowed boozy non-socially distanced drinks events with no work being done is absurd and he's either lying that he thought it did or was reckless for asserting it.
Not a coincidence.
New No10 pics acting as a metaphor for how Rishi's day is going
You have to start somewhere. And when someone is particularly blatant about it a response is necessary.
I scratched my head for a silly example, but that sort of thing happens every week. Most days really.
Not every omission would be a lie, but it can amount to it in effect.
Big winner from today is Rishi Sunak. Rebellion squashed. Boris threat neutralised. Keir Starmer embroiled in pensions hypocrisy row. Might well be some more bottles opened in Downing Street tonight.
OK, you want to believe all politicians are liars, which helps you justify defending Boris Johnson, and your probable support of him in the past. I know quite a few politicians and it is a slur to suggest they are all like him. If that kind of cynical belief helps you justify support of the worst PM of all time then I pity you.
Wait for it to be published.
It totally exonerates me !!!
Except the bit that incriminates me. That bit can't be trusted...
No-one watching the quizzing of @BorisJohnson can be in any doubt that the committee will now conclude that he recklessly misled MPs by repeating & relying on assurances that rules and guidance had not been broken inside Downing Street 1/3
None of which is meant to say Boris is right to do it himself, mind. Very clear on my views on him being unfit to be PM above. I came into this just explaining why “in the real world” no one cares about the lying to Parliament part.
With a more nuanced view now, I'm not sure that it does make Rishi less corruptible. I think had Rishi been some old money billionaire (we don't seem to have these so much in the UK as in the States), it could have worked in the way I suggested, but actually, the way it seems to work is that Rishi isn't fabulously and contentedly rich - his wife is. He is a well-off banker from humble beginnings, married to an heiress. Perhaps he even feels the need to keep up.
It's not the 'in parliament' bit that is leading to even a large proportion of Tory voters to disbelieve Boris's arguments. It's the implausibility of it.
MET 0-1 WMP
Sunak 1 ERG 0
That's my view having watched it all and not checked any punditry on here or elsewhere.
And it's important to pursue to ensure future politicians behave better - as well as ensuring that MPs can hold ministers to account rather than have these battles in a partisan press that goes into bat for their side even when it's ludicrous to do so.
RMT suspend strikes with Rail Delivery Group
Harman: "Do you still want to assert that it was certainly the case when you were present at gatherings to wish staff farewell that the guidance had been followed at all times. Do you want to assert it to the committee and thereby assert it to the House?"
@IanDunt
That last line is interesting. Is the insinuation that he is even now misleading the House? Like, as a meta act of committing the behaviour he is being investigated for while the investigation is happening.
“I think if they win, I should get all of the credit, and if they lose, I should not be blamed at all,”
Conservative = 47
Adams, Nigel
Allan, Lucy
Ansell, Caroline
Atherton, Sarah
Bacon, Gareth
Bacon, Mr Richard
Brady, Sir Graham
Bristow, Paul
Buckland, Sir Robert
Burns, Conor
Butler, Rob
Chishti, Rehman
Davies, Mims
Davies, Philip
Dinenage, Dame Caroline
Dines, Miss Sarah
Dorries, Ms Nadine
Elphicke, Mrs Natalie
Foster, Kevin
Grant, Mrs Helen
Grundy, James
Hall, Luke
Hoare, Simon
Jenkin, Sir Bernard
Leigh, Sir Edward
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Sir Julian
Longhi, Marco
McCartney, Karl
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Millar, Robin
Miller, Dame Maria
Moore, Damien
Morris, Anne Marie
Mundell, David
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rosindell, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Smith, Greg
Smith, Henry
Stevenson, Jane
Stewart, Bob
Villiers, Theresa
Watling, Giles
Webb, Suzanne
Zahawi, Nadhim
Labour = 36
Abrahams, Debbie
Ali, Rushanara
Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena
Antoniazzi, Tonia
Brown, Ms Lyn
Buck, Ms Karen
Clark, Feryal
Davies, Geraint
Davies-Jones, Alex
Dhesi, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh
Dowd, Peter
Fletcher, Colleen
Fovargue, Yvonne
Foy, Mary Kelly
Gardiner, Barry
Gill, Preet Kaur
Harman, Ms Harriet
Jarvis, Dan
Kane, Mike
Khan, Afzal
Mahmood, Mr Khalid
Mahmood, Shabana
McDonagh, Siobhain
Nandy, Lisa
Phillipson, Bridget
Pollard, Luke
Qureshi, Yasmin
Rayner, Angela
Reed, Steve
Rimmer, Ms Marie
Smith, Nick
Smyth, Karin
Streeting, Wes
Turner, Karl
Western, Andrew
Whittome, Nadia
Independents = 4
Ferrier, Margaret
Knight, Julian
Pincher, Christopher
Webbe, Claudia
Alba = 2
Hanvey, Neale
MacAskill, Kenny
Scottish National = 2
Cherry, Joanna
Wishart, Pete
Liberal Democrat = 1
Moran, Layla
Social Democratic & Labour = 1
Hanna, Claire
Speaker & Deputy Speakers = 5
Hoyle, Sir Lindsay
Evans, Mr Nigel
Gale, Sir Roger
Laing, Dame Eleanor
Winterton, Dame Rosie
:
Money
Ideology
Compromise
Ego
Or any combination thereof.
But I think the attacks on rishi over being rich are over-egged. Does he have a Stuatatory Instrument in his name, as Starmer does?
I think reckless misleading would be sufficient though to end any delusional ambitions of a return to no 10.