Boris Johnson is a tragic figure. It's hard not to feel a little bit sorry for someone so acutely unaware of his own failings. As I've always said, the real opprobrium should be reserved for the Conservative party and it's MPs, who foisted this damaged and wholly unsuitable man on us when they knew damn well what he was like. If they pay an electoral price for that it will be entirely deserved.
I feel no empathy for Johnson's plight, and for a man of his age he should have learned the grace to accept justified defeat rather than throwing all his toys out of the pram. An awfully spoiled old man.
I think the publishing of the report and subsequent vote in the Commons although effectively symbolic now is the final nail in the coffin of the lying oafs political career .
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This will be key - though I think given the appearance of Uxbridge now too makes an informal pact more likely, as the LDs give Labour a clear run there.
It *is* easy to forget that the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Labour can often be deep and vicious at local level.
Yes - IIRC the Ukbridge LibDem last time ran on an "only I can win here" slogan, starting at 4%. But I agree that the two by-elections make an unofficial understanding more likely.
SNP leader accuses Westminster of “third rate political soap opera”,
He has a point: it’s pretty pathetic compared to Holyrood. Where are the police vans? The sudden arrests? The secret mobile home? Westminster does need to do better…
SNP leader accuses Westminster of “third rate political soap opera”,
He has a point: it’s pretty pathetic compared to Holyrood. Where are the police vans? The sudden arrests? The secret mobile home? Westminster does need to do better…
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
That makes no sense. A recall petition leading to a by-election lets you stand in the by-election. If you win that, that trumps everything for it is the democratic expression of the people. The idea of holding a recall petition immediately after an election win doesn’t fit that logic.
It's not about logic, it's about the rules. You need to point to the provision in the HC disqualification act 1975 or wherever which applies to him.
*) Even if this is the end of BJ's political career, he will not go quietly. He will spend years writing articles and appearing on TV moaning about how all his successors are doing things wrong. Think Heath on acid.
*) Back when he was MoL, I decided that BJ was unsuitable for high office. It's interesting that his downfall have been due not to bad governance, but the character flaws that were all too visible then. A propensity to help his mates; a tendency to ignore advice; a habit of non-cooperation with critics. An obfuscation of the truth. A policy of spreading mistruths and bluster. All these were plainly visible in the Garden Bridge debacle.
Ultimately, character is destiny. Johnson's character, especially his willingness to say what was needed to be liked, made him formidable at winning elections but totally unsuited to governing after his victory.
Back in his pomp, about two years ago, people talked about Boris Derangement Syndrome. The idea that his enemies were driven mad by his success and couldn't respond properly to his brilliance.
Who is looking deranged now?
Yes. The rambling, self-pitying rage of his resignation statement reflects his own derangement, as he comes to terms with the reality of his political career as against his childhood dream of becoming the new Churchill...
He closely resembles Churchill.
A drunken, lying populist with zero judgement and a penchant for bellicose rhetoric who ultimately has neither judgement nor intellect in sufficient quantities to be a significant player in normal circumstances.*
Johnson's problem is that it seems unlikely that he will happen on one salient issue, by chance, and it become the defining issue of our times. Brexit was closest but not close enough.
*In one way of course Churchill was very different - with all his faults, he wasn't lazy.
I don't think that's fair.
It was leadership, not rhetoric. Remember the atrocious management of our defences and the war effort before he took office.
He did the rhetoric, yes, that's part of it, but also combined the offices of PM and Minister of Defence into one, scrapped the myriad of bureaucratic Whitehall committees that had previously been badly managing the war effort piecemeal, fully mobilised the whole economy for it, and focused all decision-making on a small tight war cabinet that met several times a day and demanded "action this day".
That's leadership. Churchill was a romantic but he was no fool.
You're talking about the war. He had a long career before the war.
Yes, and a significant one, albeit often full of blunders.
Calling the troops out against the miners as Home Sec, the botched Dardenelles plan that killed my Great Grandfather and Great Great Uncle, the bombing of the Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons, the Navy cuts of the 1920s and sticking with the Gold Standard at an overvalued rate as CoE.
Often wrong, but surely a "Significant Player" in a variety of roles?
I suspect Boris won't stand in either seat, Mid Beds is too risky given a potential LD by election gain there and Uxbridge would go Labour on the current national polls.
Most likely he will sit Parliament out for a year or two, let Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election (he will hope reasonably heavily) and come back in a safe Tory seat in opposition if the Starmer government is unpopular and the economy still facing high inflation and even more frequent strikes
I don't see him ever returning to Parliament. Howling at the moon through a series of lecture tours and newspaper columns would be (a) easier (b) more lucrative and (c) much more emotionally satisfying for him.
Given his obsession with Churchill, Johnson probably sees himself entering his 'wilderness years' before a desperate country humbly asks him to come back to lead the defence of Blighty - on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, in the hills, etc. etc...
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
Still some scope for being selected bu a friendly local convener and constituency association, with a very nasty CA vs CCHQ row as starters.
The thing about him coming back though overlooks the fact that he’s a lazy sack of shit.
If the idea is that he goes to a safe seat and after the Tories lose the next election and then emerges as the messiah to lead the Tories in opposition then it’s flawed because, as I said, he’s a lazy sack of shit, and being Leader of the Opposition requires hard work and presence. He’s not going to be able to be LotO and swan off around the world filling his bank balance.
There is also the big chance that he would have to take two terms in opposition before the Tories are elected again so he would have to dedicate approx 8 years to hard graft before his reward.
If he thinks he can sit on the back benches until the Tories are electable as a govt then he’s deluded as well because why would any leader of the Tories stand aside for him if they’ve done the hard yards to get near govt. which leaves him having to ferment some sort of takeover at the last minute which would then make the party unelectable anyway.
He really needs to F off and talk nonsense to idiots who pay to hear it and don’t realise they can just go on YouTube and hear his bullshit for free from past utterances.
Boris Johnson is a tragic figure. It's hard not to feel a little bit sorry for someone so acutely unaware of his own failings. As I've always said, the real opprobrium should be reserved for the Conservative party and it's MPs, who foisted this damaged and wholly unsuitable man on us when they knew damn well what he was like. If they pay an electoral price for that it will be entirely deserved.
I feel no empathy for Johnson's plight, and for a man of his age he should have learned the grace to accept justified defeat rather than throwing all his toys out of the pram. An awfully spoiled old man.
I agree with that - and it seems he is trying to take the Conservative Party down with him, which shows that it was always about *him*.
But I'd also add that your comment also applies to Corbyn: a man who was defeated twice, and should have resigned as an MP after the report into anti-Semitism within the Labour Party under his leadership came out. And who is also working against his party (even if he is no longer in that party).
Cotbyn and Johnson are both cheeks of the same fetid arse. What a terrible choice we had in 2019, and shame on both the Conservative and Labour for foisting such unsuitable candidates on us.
Angela Rayner has just said on BBC that Labour will fight both by-elections ‘to win’.
But she would say that. No-one is going to officially say otherwise. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t going to be a mutually beneficial decision to focus on one more than the other.
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This will be key - though I think given the appearance of Uxbridge now too makes an informal pact more likely, as the LDs give Labour a clear run there.
It *is* easy to forget that the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Labour can often be deep and vicious at local level.
Yes - IIRC the Ukbridge LibDem last time ran on an "only I can win here" slogan, starting at 4%. But I agree that the two by-elections make an unofficial understanding more likely.
It helps that the two constituencies are quite close together: 58 minutes drive on Google maps. So despite the rivalries, activists will pour into whichever constituency needs them most.
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
Yes, I fear this may be the case. The Cherwell debacle shows that the Labour NEC are not inclined to indulge the LibDems in the Blue Wall and are prepared to cut off their own nose in the process. Essentially they want to avoid the LibDems being seen as the default choice in southern England outside London.
On the other hand: I think BJ did excellently over Ukraine. .
Did he though?
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
1. I don't think any UK PM would have had much influence over the Afghan withdrawal. The US wanted to do it, so it was done. Unless you're saying that the UK should have remained there alone?
2. Perhaps. But a no-fly zone was always going to be a massive step towards escalation. Instead, the UK has been leading the smaller steps - from NLAWs and training to tanks and long-range missiles (a couple of these after BJ, admittedly).
Agreed. I don’t think we had much influence over what the US did in Afghanistan - certainly insufficient to stop their withdrawal. But beyond that, it was the reaction, or rather lack of it, to Putin’s seizure of Crimea which determined his later actions. I think the Afghan withdrawal is way overrated as a factor.
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
That makes no sense. A recall petition leading to a by-election lets you stand in the by-election. If you win that, that trumps everything for it is the democratic expression of the people. The idea of holding a recall petition immediately after an election win doesn’t fit that logic.
It's not about logic, it's about the rules. You need to point to the provision in the HC disqualification act 1975 or wherever which applies to him.
The 1975 Disqualification Act says nothing that is applicable here. Are you just tossing out random words? The 2015 Recall Act is more relevant and says nothing about barring someone from standing.
*) Even if this is the end of BJ's political career, he will not go quietly. He will spend years writing articles and appearing on TV moaning about how all his successors are doing things wrong. Think Heath on acid.
*) Back when he was MoL, I decided that BJ was unsuitable for high office. It's interesting that his downfall have been due not to bad governance, but the character flaws that were all too visible then. A propensity to help his mates; a tendency to ignore advice; a habit of non-cooperation with critics. An obfuscation of the truth. A policy of spreading mistruths and bluster. All these were plainly visible in the Garden Bridge debacle.
Ultimately, character is destiny. Johnson's character, especially his willingness to say what was needed to be liked, made him formidable at winning elections but totally unsuited to governing after his victory.
Back in his pomp, about two years ago, people talked about Boris Derangement Syndrome. The idea that his enemies were driven mad by his success and couldn't respond properly to his brilliance.
Who is looking deranged now?
Yes. The rambling, self-pitying rage of his resignation statement reflects his own derangement, as he comes to terms with the reality of his political career as against his childhood dream of becoming the new Churchill...
He closely resembles Churchill.
A drunken, lying populist with zero judgement and a penchant for bellicose rhetoric who ultimately has neither judgement nor intellect in sufficient quantities to be a significant player in normal circumstances.*
Johnson's problem is that it seems unlikely that he will happen on one salient issue, by chance, and it become the defining issue of our times. Brexit was closest but not close enough.
*In one way of course Churchill was very different - with all his faults, he wasn't lazy.
And with interest in and attention to detail.
And in being principled, even if some of those principles were peculiar.
Churchill wasn't principled. He was like Corbyn - he claimed to be principled, but actually frequently changed his mind on things and mysteriously, did so to his own advantage.
Points of principle he changed his mind on include Free Trade, Socialism, the gold standard, Ireland, India, not resisting aggressive dictators...
The key thing about Churchill is not that he was principled, or even that he was right. It was that he happened to be right about Hitler.
He was eminently quotable, and that counts for a lot when ones relationship with history is to treat it as a pic n mix. Those who like to plunder the past for snippets that justify their shallow opinions love a good quote. In this respect, Churchill is the Conservative Marx.
It's no fault of his, of course, that he lives this flimsy political afterlife. He deserves better; anyone would. But at least he isn't in any sense unique in being mistreated in this way. He's just a richer trove than most.
On the other hand: I think BJ did excellently over Ukraine. .
Did he though?
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
1. I don't think any UK PM would have had much influence over the Afghan withdrawal. The US wanted to do it, so it was done. Unless you're saying that the UK should have remained there alone?
2. Perhaps. But a no-fly zone was always going to be a massive step towards escalation. Instead, the UK has been leading the smaller steps - from NLAWs and training to tanks and long-range missiles (a couple of these after BJ, admittedly).
Agreed. I don’t think we had much influence over what the US did in Afghanistan - certainly insufficient to stop their withdrawal. But beyond that, it was the reaction, or rather lack of it, to Putin’s seizure of Crimea which determined his later actions. I think the Afghan withdrawal is way overrated as a factor.
And the lacklustre reaction to Salisbury (I think May took the international community as far as she could with that, to her credit). And before that, MH17, Syria, Litvinenko, Salisbury etc.
Boris Johnson is a tragic figure. It's hard not to feel a little bit sorry for someone so acutely unaware of his own failings. As I've always said, the real opprobrium should be reserved for the Conservative party and it's MPs, who foisted this damaged and wholly unsuitable man on us when they knew damn well what he was like. If they pay an electoral price for that it will be entirely deserved.
I feel no empathy for Johnson's plight, and for a man of his age he should have learned the grace to accept justified defeat rather than throwing all his toys out of the pram. An awfully spoiled old man.
I think you're being too kind to him tbf.
It's a weakness of mine. I'll call it as I see it, the man is a ....
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
Is this the end of Boris Johnson as a significant political figure? I think not, his attitude now exactly mirrors his long-ago school report about being affronted when his activities are called into question. And we have, so far, made no mention of what may be a power behind the throne; Carrie. Will she be satisfied with being the wife of a ‘has been’ politician turned occasional public speaker?
I think that is certainly how he sees himself. Can´t speak for the current Mrs Johnson.
However, I am skeptical about how much agency he has in his career now: the current (and any likely future) Conservative Party leadership will fight tooth and nail to keep him from standing again as a Conservative candidate, and the view of the voters is quite a bit more negative. So even if nominated, he could lose and I do not think he will be nominated.
He is finished.
Yes, I think so. Within our political system there are really only two options: The prolonged sulk, and disappearing into obscurity. May, Thatcher and Heath did the former; Wilson, Callaghan, Blair, Brown, Cameron the latter. Some combine both, but I have Johnson down as a Prolonged Sulker, as most Tory ex-PMs go that route.
Boris Johnson is a tragic figure. It's hard not to feel a little bit sorry for someone so acutely unaware of his own failings. As I've always said, the real opprobrium should be reserved for the Conservative party and it's MPs, who foisted this damaged and wholly unsuitable man on us when they knew damn well what he was like. If they pay an electoral price for that it will be entirely deserved.
I feel no empathy for Johnson's plight, and for a man of his age he should have learned the grace to accept justified defeat rather than throwing all his toys out of the pram. An awfully spoiled old man.
I agree with that - and it seems he is trying to take the Conservative Party down with him, which shows that it was always about *him*.
But I'd also add that your comment also applies to Corbyn: a man who was defeated twice, and should have resigned as an MP after the report into anti-Semitism within the Labour Party under his leadership came out. And who is also working against his party (even if he is no longer in that party).
Cotbyn and Johnson are both cheeks of the same fetid arse. What a terrible choice we had in 2019, and shame on both the Conservative and Labour for foisting such unsuitable candidates on us.
I'm not sure the report into Labour Party antisemitism says what you think it says. It is mainly about the myriad shortcomings of the Labour Party's complaints system, which, by the way, had also been flagged up by the Chakrabarti report commonly described as a whitewash by people who've not read that one either.
On the other hand: I think BJ did excellently over Ukraine. .
Did he though?
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
1. I don't think any UK PM would have had much influence over the Afghan withdrawal. The US wanted to do it, so it was done. Unless you're saying that the UK should have remained there alone?
2. Perhaps. But a no-fly zone was always going to be a massive step towards escalation. Instead, the UK has been leading the smaller steps - from NLAWs and training to tanks and long-range missiles (a couple of these after BJ, admittedly).
Agreed. I don’t think we had much influence over what the US did in Afghanistan - certainly insufficient to stop their withdrawal. But beyond that, it was the reaction, or rather lack of it, to Putin’s seizure of Crimea which determined his later actions. I think the Afghan withdrawal is way overrated as a factor.
The endless cavalcade of Proper Historic Things has meant we haven’t really had time to examine what a catastrophe the western intervention in Afghanistan has been.
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
That makes no sense. A recall petition leading to a by-election lets you stand in the by-election. If you win that, that trumps everything for it is the democratic expression of the people. The idea of holding a recall petition immediately after an election win doesn’t fit that logic.
It's not about logic, it's about the rules. You need to point to the provision in the HC disqualification act 1975 or wherever which applies to him.
The 1975 Disqualification Act says nothing that is applicable here. Are you just tossing out random words? The 2015 Recall Act is more relevant and says nothing about barring someone from standing.
I think I have misunderstood your point, I thought you were suggesting he was disqualified from standing
But a recall petition is perfectly logical assuming that the privileges committee thing goes into abeyance while he is not an MP. He gets elected, it reconvenes and suspends him. The electorate did not in theory know about that suspension when it elected him.
Interesting - just got a Labour party email, signed by Keir Starmer, asking for a contribution to help Labour win in Uxbridge. No mention of Mid-Beds anywhere.
Boris Johnson is a tragic figure. It's hard not to feel a little bit sorry for someone so acutely unaware of his own failings. As I've always said, the real opprobrium should be reserved for the Conservative party and it's MPs, who foisted this damaged and wholly unsuitable man on us when they knew damn well what he was like. If they pay an electoral price for that it will be entirely deserved.
I feel no empathy for Johnson's plight, and for a man of his age he should have learned the grace to accept justified defeat rather than throwing all his toys out of the pram. An awfully spoiled old man.
I agree with that - and it seems he is trying to take the Conservative Party down with him, which shows that it was always about *him*.
But I'd also add that your comment also applies to Corbyn: a man who was defeated twice, and should have resigned as an MP after the report into anti-Semitism within the Labour Party under his leadership came out. And who is also working against his party (even if he is no longer in that party).
Cotbyn and Johnson are both cheeks of the same fetid arse. What a terrible choice we had in 2019, and shame on both the Conservative and Labour for foisting such unsuitable candidates on us.
I agree 100%. But today we can bathe in Johnson's justifiable pain.
Although tbf I don't believe Corbyn published a covert coded hitlist like Johnson did with his awful self-pitying essay
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This will be key - though I think given the appearance of Uxbridge now too makes an informal pact more likely, as the LDs give Labour a clear run there.
It *is* easy to forget that the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Labour can often be deep and vicious at local level.
Very much so. I think that may well apply in and around Mid-Beds, from what I’m hearing. I just don’t see Labour people in Hitchin, say, being happy to stand back for the LDs.
Hitchin isn't that far from London.
Look, no doubt there are people about who'll campaign from Labour in Mid Beds (and LDs who'll go to Uxbridge). Candidates will loudly proclaim their great prospects. But the HEAVY incentive for a Labour activist is to get a good reception with loads of comrades pushing for a stonking win in Johnson's old seat. It's bloody specialist to want to push water uphill in Flitwick when you can do that. And that reality will quickly become obvious on the ground.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Amid all the delight at the indictment of Trump and the resignation of Mad Nad and BoJo, of your mercy spare some joy in your heart for the growing humiliation of Crispin Odious. It really has been a good week.
I suspect Boris won't stand in either seat, Mid Beds is too risky given a potential LD by election gain there and Uxbridge would go Labour on the current national polls.
Most likely he will sit Parliament out for a year or two, let Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election (he will hope reasonably heavily) and come back in a safe Tory seat in opposition if the Starmer government is unpopular and the economy still facing high inflation and even more frequent strikes
I don't see him ever returning to Parliament. Howling at the moon through a series of lecture tours and newspaper columns would be (a) easier (b) more lucrative and (c) much more emotionally satisfying for him.
Given his obsession with Churchill, Johnson probably sees himself entering his 'wilderness years' before a desperate country humbly asks him to come back to lead the defence of Blighty - on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, in the hills, etc. etc...
Worth noting that the only person who sees a parallel between Johnson and Churchill is Johnson himself!
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
That makes no sense. A recall petition leading to a by-election lets you stand in the by-election. If you win that, that trumps everything for it is the democratic expression of the people. The idea of holding a recall petition immediately after an election win doesn’t fit that logic.
It's not about logic, it's about the rules. You need to point to the provision in the HC disqualification act 1975 or wherever which applies to him.
The 1975 Disqualification Act says nothing that is applicable here. Are you just tossing out random words? The 2015 Recall Act is more relevant and says nothing about barring someone from standing.
I think I have misunderstood your point, I thought you were suggesting he was disqualified from standing
But a recall petition is perfectly logical assuming that the privileges committee thing goes into abeyance while he is not an MP. He gets elected, it reconvenes and suspends him. The electorate did not in theory know about that suspension when it elected him.
There’s no legislation supporting that idea. The idea that the electorate “did not in theory know about that suspension” is… imaginative.
I suspect Boris won't stand in either seat, Mid Beds is too risky given a potential LD by election gain there and Uxbridge would go Labour on the current national polls.
Most likely he will sit Parliament out for a year or two, let Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election (he will hope reasonably heavily) and come back in a safe Tory seat in opposition if the Starmer government is unpopular and the economy still facing high inflation and even more frequent strikes
I don't see him ever returning to Parliament. Howling at the moon through a series of lecture tours and newspaper columns would be (a) easier (b) more lucrative and (c) much more emotionally satisfying for him.
Given his obsession with Churchill, Johnson probably sees himself entering his 'wilderness years' before a desperate country humbly asks him to come back to lead the defence of Blighty - on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, in the hills, etc. etc...
Yep. I went in for as long as I could bear (a couple of seconds) and can confirm that this (delusional or not) is the spool playing in his head. Politics is where it's at for him not lecture tours. Might as well face it, he's addicted.
*) Even if this is the end of BJ's political career, he will not go quietly. He will spend years writing articles and appearing on TV moaning about how all his successors are doing things wrong. Think Heath on acid.
*) Back when he was MoL, I decided that BJ was unsuitable for high office. It's interesting that his downfall have been due not to bad governance, but the character flaws that were all too visible then. A propensity to help his mates; a tendency to ignore advice; a habit of non-cooperation with critics. An obfuscation of the truth. A policy of spreading mistruths and bluster. All these were plainly visible in the Garden Bridge debacle.
Ultimately, character is destiny. Johnson's character, especially his willingness to say what was needed to be liked, made him formidable at winning elections but totally unsuited to governing after his victory.
Back in his pomp, about two years ago, people talked about Boris Derangement Syndrome. The idea that his enemies were driven mad by his success and couldn't respond properly to his brilliance.
Who is looking deranged now?
Yes. The rambling, self-pitying rage of his resignation statement reflects his own derangement, as he comes to terms with the reality of his political career as against his childhood dream of becoming the new Churchill...
He closely resembles Churchill.
A drunken, lying populist with zero judgement and a penchant for bellicose rhetoric who ultimately has neither judgement nor intellect in sufficient quantities to be a significant player in normal circumstances.*
Johnson's problem is that it seems unlikely that he will happen on one salient issue, by chance, and it become the defining issue of our times. Brexit was closest but not close enough.
*In one way of course Churchill was very different - with all his faults, he wasn't lazy.
And with interest in and attention to detail.
And in being principled, even if some of those principles were peculiar.
Churchill wasn't principled. He was like Corbyn - he claimed to be principled, but actually frequently changed his mind on things and mysteriously, did so to his own advantage.
Points of principle he changed his mind on include Free Trade, Socialism, the gold standard, Ireland, India, not resisting aggressive dictators...
The key thing about Churchill is not that he was principled, or even that he was right. It was that he happened to be right about Hitler.
He was eminently quotable, and that counts for a lot when ones relationship with history is to treat it as a pic n mix. Those who like to plunder the past for snippets that justify their shallow opinions love a good quote. In this respect, Churchill is the Conservative Marx.
It's no fault of his, of course, that he lives this flimsy political afterlife. He deserves better; anyone would. But at least he isn't in any sense unique in being mistreated in this way. He's just a richer trove than most.
I nearly quoted Marx in regard to CHurchill in one of my earlier posts, actually.
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
Angela Rayner has just said on BBC that Labour will fight both by-elections ‘to win’.
MRD applies
Of course, and I agree with everyone else who made more or less the same point. However she went on further about no coalitions, no agreements. Labour or nothing. And while I agree that MRD applies she did seem to take it further than she needed to.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
Absolutely. I wouldn't say he's completely stupid but I wouldn't say he's highly intelligent either.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
Were you drinking with him before you both voted to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?
Is this the end of Boris Johnson as a significant political figure? I think not, his attitude now exactly mirrors his long-ago school report about being affronted when his activities are called into question. And we have, so far, made no mention of what may be a power behind the throne; Carrie. Will she be satisfied with being the wife of a ‘has been’ politician turned occasional public speaker?
I think that is certainly how he sees himself. Can´t speak for the current Mrs Johnson.
However, I am skeptical about how much agency he has in his career now: the current (and any likely future) Conservative Party leadership will fight tooth and nail to keep him from standing again as a Conservative candidate, and the view of the voters is quite a bit more negative. So even if nominated, he could lose and I do not think he will be nominated.
He is finished.
Yes, I think so. Within our political system there are really only two options: The prolonged sulk, and disappearing into obscurity. May, Thatcher and Heath did the former; Wilson, Callaghan, Blair, Brown, Cameron the latter. Some combine both, but I have Johnson down as a Prolonged Sulker, as most Tory ex-PMs go that route.
I think that’s a little harsh on May. I’ve no great love for her - she was an awful PM - but while she’s stuck around and stuck her oar in, she’s done so quite cheerfully. A much better senior backbencher than PM.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
Nah, if he was smart he'd have done a proper degree.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
You’ve described me, more or less - albeit I went to a pit village comp rather than Eton and am a middling marketing exec rather than PM.
To @NickPalmer’s point, we are all mixed bags, and I do have a small degree of empathy for Boris’s failings in terms of laziness, and also in his enjoyment of intellectual breadth. But: that aside he is fundamentally a pretty nasty guy; a manipulator and a user - essentially a narcissist (I flatter myself that I’m not!) who uses his gifts for bluster and gladhanding entirely for personal gain.
This can't come as a surprise to anybody who watched his testimony before the Committee. They gave him an opportunity to repent; he chose not to take it.
This is, of course, pure speculation. But even as President, there’s no real good reason for him to take an interest in the particular identities of active agents, and there’s zero excuse for playing with such secrets, on which lives depend, out of office.
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
That makes no sense. A recall petition leading to a by-election lets you stand in the by-election. If you win that, that trumps everything for it is the democratic expression of the people. The idea of holding a recall petition immediately after an election win doesn’t fit that logic.
It's not about logic, it's about the rules. You need to point to the provision in the HC disqualification act 1975 or wherever which applies to him.
The 1975 Disqualification Act says nothing that is applicable here. Are you just tossing out random words? The 2015 Recall Act is more relevant and says nothing about barring someone from standing.
I think I have misunderstood your point, I thought you were suggesting he was disqualified from standing
But a recall petition is perfectly logical assuming that the privileges committee thing goes into abeyance while he is not an MP. He gets elected, it reconvenes and suspends him. The electorate did not in theory know about that suspension when it elected him.
There’s no legislation supporting that idea. The idea that the electorate “did not in theory know about that suspension” is… imaginative.
I don't think you understand how a rules based system works.
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
That makes no sense. A recall petition leading to a by-election lets you stand in the by-election. If you win that, that trumps everything for it is the democratic expression of the people. The idea of holding a recall petition immediately after an election win doesn’t fit that logic.
It's not about logic, it's about the rules. You need to point to the provision in the HC disqualification act 1975 or wherever which applies to him.
The 1975 Disqualification Act says nothing that is applicable here. Are you just tossing out random words? The 2015 Recall Act is more relevant and says nothing about barring someone from standing.
I think I have misunderstood your point, I thought you were suggesting he was disqualified from standing
But a recall petition is perfectly logical assuming that the privileges committee thing goes into abeyance while he is not an MP. He gets elected, it reconvenes and suspends him. The electorate did not in theory know about that suspension when it elected him.
There’s no legislation supporting that idea. The idea that the electorate “did not in theory know about that suspension” is… imaginative.
I don't think what the electorate knew is relevant either way.
The legislation seems perfectly clear. The relevant condition for the recall process is simply that "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/body/2016-03-04
So if Johnson were re-elected for a different seat in a by-election, and then suspended as a result of this report, he would be subject to the recall process.
SNP leader accuses Westminster of “third rate political soap opera”,
He has a point: it’s pretty pathetic compared to Holyrood. Where are the police vans? The sudden arrests? The secret mobile home? Westminster does need to do better…
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
Yes, I see that often in my line of work, intelligent people who are lazy and entitled. Give me someone with a strong work ethic and commitment to the job any day.
“I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.”
Letter from Cromwell to Sir William Spring. Sept. 1643.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
Nah, if he was smart he'd have done a proper degree.
Greats at Oxford had a reputation for being the soft option, certainly if you didn't get a first. I know because I had a (very intelligent) friend who was reading Greats at Oxford a little before the relevant period - BUT she was putting the hard work in for a good result.
Interesting - just got a Labour party email, signed by Keir Starmer, asking for a contribution to help Labour win in Uxbridge. No mention of Mid-Beds anywhere.
I've just had one asking for help in both. Some strange targeting algorithm choosing which of us to send which version to!
Is this the end of Boris Johnson as a significant political figure? I think not, his attitude now exactly mirrors his long-ago school report about being affronted when his activities are called into question. And we have, so far, made no mention of what may be a power behind the throne; Carrie. Will she be satisfied with being the wife of a ‘has been’ politician turned occasional public speaker?
I think that is certainly how he sees himself. Can´t speak for the current Mrs Johnson.
However, I am skeptical about how much agency he has in his career now: the current (and any likely future) Conservative Party leadership will fight tooth and nail to keep him from standing again as a Conservative candidate, and the view of the voters is quite a bit more negative. So even if nominated, he could lose and I do not think he will be nominated.
He is finished.
Yes, I think so. Within our political system there are really only two options: The prolonged sulk, and disappearing into obscurity. May, Thatcher and Heath did the former; Wilson, Callaghan, Blair, Brown, Cameron the latter. Some combine both, but I have Johnson down as a Prolonged Sulker, as most Tory ex-PMs go that route.
Major didn't, nor did Macmillan and Home nor Cameron as you say. Brown had a semi sulk at least
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
You’ve described me, more or less - albeit I went to a pit village comp rather than Eton and am a middling marketing exec rather than PM.
To @NickPalmer’s point, we are all mixed bags, and I do have a small degree of empathy for Boris’s failings in terms of laziness, and also in his enjoyment of intellectual breadth. But: that aside he is fundamentally a pretty nasty guy; a manipulator and a user - essentially a narcissist (I flatter myself that I’m not!) who uses his gifts for bluster and gladhanding entirely for personal gain.
You remind me of Richard Armour's comment on the Duke's remarks in the Merchant of Venice:
'The Duke doesn't like Shylock, but is careful not to show it, as a judge must be impartial.'
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
Absolutely. I wouldn't say he's completely stupid but I wouldn't say he's highly intelligent either.
He is a very skilled and devious manipulator of people, and that is the key to his political prowress, and probably fairly intelligent too, but not really more so than many other politicians.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
You’ve described me, more or less - albeit I went to a pit village comp rather than Eton and am a middling marketing exec rather than PM.
To @NickPalmer’s point, we are all mixed bags, and I do have a small degree of empathy for Boris’s failings in terms of laziness, and also in his enjoyment of intellectual breadth. But: that aside he is fundamentally a pretty nasty guy; a manipulator and a user - essentially a narcissist (I flatter myself that I’m not!) who uses his gifts for bluster and gladhanding entirely for personal gain.
You remind me of Richard Armour's comment on the Duke's remarks in the Merchant of Venice:
'The Duke doesn't like Shylock, but is careful not to show it, as a judge must be impartial.'
The judge in the Kray trial (Melford Stevenson): Ronnie Kray only told the truth twice in the whole trial; once when he said his barrister was a lazy slob and once when he said the judge was biased against him.
Is this the end of Boris Johnson as a significant political figure? I think not, his attitude now exactly mirrors his long-ago school report about being affronted when his activities are called into question. And we have, so far, made no mention of what may be a power behind the throne; Carrie. Will she be satisfied with being the wife of a ‘has been’ politician turned occasional public speaker?
I think that is certainly how he sees himself. Can´t speak for the current Mrs Johnson.
However, I am skeptical about how much agency he has in his career now: the current (and any likely future) Conservative Party leadership will fight tooth and nail to keep him from standing again as a Conservative candidate, and the view of the voters is quite a bit more negative. So even if nominated, he could lose and I do not think he will be nominated.
He is finished.
Yes, I think so. Within our political system there are really only two options: The prolonged sulk, and disappearing into obscurity. May, Thatcher and Heath did the former; Wilson, Callaghan, Blair, Brown, Cameron the latter. Some combine both, but I have Johnson down as a Prolonged Sulker, as most Tory ex-PMs go that route.
Major didn't, nor did Macmillan and Home nor Cameron as you say. Brown had a semi sulk at least
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This is the interesting question now - how much will Labour understand the boundaries of the reachable universe? I posted that the latest MRP poll suggested that the new Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, and Aberdeenshire Central seats would be won by Labour from 4th on 5%. @TSE did give an example of this happening - SNP defeating Jo Swinson the first time.
Thing is that the SNP in 2015 was a national outcry against The Vow. The national outcry against the Tories doesn't have a unified direction - it isn't that every man jack of you will vote Labour. Its Anyone But Conservative.
So there is a danger here of dickhead Labour absolutists (and the party is full of that mentality) thinking they MUST win every seat no mater how mental that is. Mid Beds looks LibDem all day long, so if Labour go and split the vote like they did in Finchley and Golders Green in 2019, the Tories could hold it.
I suspect Boris won't stand in either seat, Mid Beds is too risky given a potential LD by election gain there and Uxbridge would go Labour on the current national polls.
Most likely he will sit Parliament out for a year or two, let Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election (he will hope reasonably heavily) and come back in a safe Tory seat in opposition if the Starmer government is unpopular and the economy still facing high inflation and even more frequent strikes
I don't see him ever returning to Parliament. Howling at the moon through a series of lecture tours and newspaper columns would be (a) easier (b) more lucrative and (c) much more emotionally satisfying for him.
Given his obsession with Churchill, Johnson probably sees himself entering his 'wilderness years' before a desperate country humbly asks him to come back to lead the defence of Blighty - on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets, in the hills, etc. etc...
Worth noting that the only person who sees a parallel between Johnson and Churchill is Johnson himself!
Johnson definitely isn't the ONLY person who sees a parallel.
Loads of his supporters make that comparison. You disagree with them, I disagree with them, and I don't think there's enough of them to make a difference. But they do walk among us in reasonable numbers.
Indeed, assuming Boris doesn't try and stand again in Uxbridge the Conservatives best bet is to pick a local Hillingdon councillor as their candidate. Remember they held Uxbridge in the July 1997 by election with a popular managing director of a local furniture shop, John Randall, when New Labour expected to win it given their big poll lead and picked leader of Hammersmith council (now Hammersmith MP) Andy Slaughter who lost to Randall by 4,000 votes
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This is the interesting question now - how much will Labour understand the boundaries of the reachable universe? I posted that the latest MRP poll suggested that the new Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, and Aberdeenshire Central seats would be won by Labour from 4th on 5%. @TSE did give an example of this happening - SNP defeating Jo Swinson the first time.
Thing is that the SNP in 2015 was a national outcry against The Vow. The national outcry against the Tories doesn't have a unified direction - it isn't that every man jack of you will vote Labour. Its Anyone But Conservative.
So there is a danger here of dickhead Labour absolutists (and the party is full of that mentality) thinking they MUST win every seat no mater how mental that is. Mid Beds looks LibDem all day long, so if Labour go and split the vote like they did in Finchley and Golders Green in 2019, the Tories could hold it.
By the way, I never spoke up in agreement with you about that. I don't see our constituency going Labour, I really don't. Of course it's possible, anything is. But it doesn't feel like it from where I'm sat.
And this matters for me. I most of all want the Tories out at the next election. They need to be on the end of the most vivid spanking possible. Last time I "wasted" my vote on the Lib Dems on a point of principle. This time I'm inclined to vote against the Tories in the most effective way possible. That looked and still looks like the SNP here, but if I genuinely believed Labour were in with a better chance, it would be Labour. The MRP was interesting, but for me it landed some way short of believable. I hope we get more of these before I actually need to decide because I'm definitely of a mind to follow the crowd this time.
Interesting - just got a Labour party email, signed by Keir Starmer, asking for a contribution to help Labour win in Uxbridge. No mention of Mid-Beds anywhere.
I've just had one asking for help in both. Some strange targeting algorithm choosing which of us to send which version to!
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This is the interesting question now - how much will Labour understand the boundaries of the reachable universe? I posted that the latest MRP poll suggested that the new Aberdeenshire North & Moray East, and Aberdeenshire Central seats would be won by Labour from 4th on 5%. @TSE did give an example of this happening - SNP defeating Jo Swinson the first time.
Thing is that the SNP in 2015 was a national outcry against The Vow. The national outcry against the Tories doesn't have a unified direction - it isn't that every man jack of you will vote Labour. Its Anyone But Conservative.
So there is a danger here of dickhead Labour absolutists (and the party is full of that mentality) thinking they MUST win every seat no mater how mental that is. Mid Beds looks LibDem all day long, so if Labour go and split the vote like they did in Finchley and Golders Green in 2019, the Tories could hold it.
As I say, of course some Labour activists will go, as they did in Chesham, Shropshire and Tiverton. But it'll just get drowned out by legions of Lib Dems, and the vote will be squeezed way down.
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
That makes no sense. A recall petition leading to a by-election lets you stand in the by-election. If you win that, that trumps everything for it is the democratic expression of the people. The idea of holding a recall petition immediately after an election win doesn’t fit that logic.
It's not about logic, it's about the rules. You need to point to the provision in the HC disqualification act 1975 or wherever which applies to him.
The 1975 Disqualification Act says nothing that is applicable here. Are you just tossing out random words? The 2015 Recall Act is more relevant and says nothing about barring someone from standing.
I think I have misunderstood your point, I thought you were suggesting he was disqualified from standing
But a recall petition is perfectly logical assuming that the privileges committee thing goes into abeyance while he is not an MP. He gets elected, it reconvenes and suspends him. The electorate did not in theory know about that suspension when it elected him.
There’s no legislation supporting that idea. The idea that the electorate “did not in theory know about that suspension” is… imaginative.
I don't think what the electorate knew is relevant either way.
The legislation seems perfectly clear. The relevant condition for the recall process is simply that "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/body/2016-03-04
So if Johnson were re-elected for a different seat in a by-election, and then suspended as a result of this report, he would be subject to the recall process.
If Boris Johnson was re-elected for a different seat with a large majority a recall petition might fail, or he might win the resulting recall by-election. In Uxbridge, however, he would have little chance of retaining his seat whenever the election comes. By resigning his seat now he has a chance of standing in another seat eventually.
On the other hand: I think BJ did excellently over Ukraine. .
Did he though?
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
By the way, whilst praising Maggie, something similar happened with the Falklands.
It was her Government's announcement of defence cuts, particularly the navy, that greenlit the Argentinians to invade.
But, whether or not you think Britain had a valid right to the islands the fact is that under UN law they did, so her response with the task force was pure Margaret Thatcher.
I'd like to think Maggie would have been equally as robust from the outset with Putin. A No Fly Zone was a necessity.
It’s always less costly to stand up to a bully from the beginning
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
If you believe that you would have to believe him to be malevolent beyond even what his haters believe him to be. No one with such a 'high degree of intelligence' would have wanted to take the country out of the EU unless for reasons known among Conservatives as 'an Ideology' and no one has ever accused him of having one of those
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This will be key - though I think given the appearance of Uxbridge now too makes an informal pact more likely, as the LDs give Labour a clear run there.
It *is* easy to forget that the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Labour can often be deep and vicious at local level.
Yes - IIRC the Ukbridge LibDem last time ran on an "only I can win here" slogan, starting at 4%. But I agree that the two by-elections make an unofficial understanding more likely.
We saw in the locals that punters have become well attuned to how tactical voting can oust the Tory. As long as the parties continue to have a realistic view of the world, this could be pulled off.
Back in 2019 Jo Swinson was on her flight of Icarus, with LD activists being directed to campaign in all kinds of hubristically bonkers seats. Until the last week when "oh shit! Defend! Defend!" kicked in. Similarly Momentum flooded Finchley to stop the uppity Jew traitor - no actual plan for what the activists should do whilst there, not a seat they could win, but hubris and anger.
That is the past. Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections: Rutherglen: Labour Mid Beds: LibDems Uxbridge: Labour
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
That makes no sense. A recall petition leading to a by-election lets you stand in the by-election. If you win that, that trumps everything for it is the democratic expression of the people. The idea of holding a recall petition immediately after an election win doesn’t fit that logic.
It's not about logic, it's about the rules. You need to point to the provision in the HC disqualification act 1975 or wherever which applies to him.
The 1975 Disqualification Act says nothing that is applicable here. Are you just tossing out random words? The 2015 Recall Act is more relevant and says nothing about barring someone from standing.
I think I have misunderstood your point, I thought you were suggesting he was disqualified from standing
But a recall petition is perfectly logical assuming that the privileges committee thing goes into abeyance while he is not an MP. He gets elected, it reconvenes and suspends him. The electorate did not in theory know about that suspension when it elected him.
There’s no legislation supporting that idea. The idea that the electorate “did not in theory know about that suspension” is… imaginative.
I don't think what the electorate knew is relevant either way.
The legislation seems perfectly clear. The relevant condition for the recall process is simply that "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/body/2016-03-04
So if Johnson were re-elected for a different seat in a by-election, and then suspended as a result of this report, he would be subject to the recall process.
If Boris Johnson was re-elected for a different seat with a large majority a recall petition might fail, or he might win the resulting recall by-election. In Uxbridge, however, he would have little chance of retaining his seat whenever the election comes. By resigning his seat now he has a chance of standing in another seat eventually.
The recall by-election consequent on his election could well be fought in a "how dare the **** disrespect democracy?" - Brexit referendum style.
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
I don’t see how Johnson can be prevented from standing for Parliament in the future. That seems erroneous.
I agree. I think he gets elected and then faces a recall petition.
Still some scope for being selected bu a friendly local convener and constituency association, with a very nasty CA vs CCHQ row as starters.
The thing about him coming back though overlooks the fact that he’s a lazy sack of shit.
If the idea is that he goes to a safe seat and after the Tories lose the next election and then emerges as the messiah to lead the Tories in opposition then it’s flawed because, as I said, he’s a lazy sack of shit, and being Leader of the Opposition requires hard work and presence. He’s not going to be able to be LotO and swan off around the world filling his bank balance.
There is also the big chance that he would have to take two terms in opposition before the Tories are elected again so he would have to dedicate approx 8 years to hard graft before his reward.
If he thinks he can sit on the back benches until the Tories are electable as a govt then he’s deluded as well because why would any leader of the Tories stand aside for him if they’ve done the hard yards to get near govt. which leaves him having to ferment some sort of takeover at the last minute which would then make the party unelectable anyway.
He really needs to F off and talk nonsense to idiots who pay to hear it and don’t realise they can just go on YouTube and hear his bullshit for free from past utterances.
Stalin was also a sack of shit, but his capacity for hard work made him formidable.
On the other hand: I think BJ did excellently over Ukraine. .
Did he though?
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
By the way, whilst praising Maggie, something similar happened with the Falklands.
It was her Government's announcement of defence cuts, particularly the navy, that greenlit the Argentinians to invade.
But, whether or not you think Britain had a valid right to the islands the fact is that under UN law they did, so her response with the task force was pure Margaret Thatcher.
I'd like to think Maggie would have been equally as robust from the outset with Putin. A No Fly Zone was a necessity.
It’s always less costly to stand up to a bully from the beginning
Mrs Thatcher would not have stood up to Putin but she might have persuaded President Biden to do so. She did the same with Iraq and the first President Bush. As for the Falklands, after the war, her defence cuts resumed. Older PBers will recall John Nott walking out of an interview with Sir Robin Day when questioned on this.
This is, of course, pure speculation. But even as President, there’s no real good reason for him to take an interest in the particular identities of active agents, and there’s zero excuse for playing with such secrets, on which lives depend, out of office.
Even if the facts are never known, what’s almost certain is that intelligence services will have to have assumed that sources may have been compromised. They’ve no way of knowing which of those documents might have been shared, or inadvertently seen, or by whom. Sources and methods will have to have been abandoned or changed.
And the future recruitment of foreign assets will seriously have been hampered by this, It’s a huge blow to the confidence of agents that the US takes their security seriously, when the guy who played with their lives has a serious shot at being re-elected.
Whether he was malign, or simply an incompetent fool, this, as with much else, ought to be disqualificatory.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
My view on Johnson is that he is highly intelligent, but has a lazy brain. I reckon he coasted through school, not having to apply himself much, and he has continued in that way through life. If something interested him or caught his attention, he had the intellect to do it well.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
But: that aside he is fundamentally a pretty nasty guy; a manipulator and a user - essentially a narcissist (I flatter myself that I’m not!) who uses his gifts for bluster and gladhanding entirely for personal gain.
Sir Alan Duncan was asked about working for both May & Johnson. Mrs May had strengths & weaknesses, good at this, not so good at that. As to Johnson, one word, a gynecological term.
I think it's possible Con might have held Mid-Bedfordshire but for Boris quitting. Its in range for the LDs (sorry Dr Palmer but there is recent proof of that!) but no easy ask, but with the drama of Boris being replaced the same day everyone will be super fired up and Tories even more downcast.
Indeed, assuming Boris doesn't try and stand again in Uxbridge the Conservatives best bet is to pick a local Hillingdon councillor as their candidate. Remember they held Uxbridge in the July 1997 by election with a popular managing director of a local furniture shop, John Randall, when New Labour expected to win it given their big poll lead and picked leader of Hammersmith council (now Hammersmith MP) Andy Slaughter who lost to Randall by 4,000 votes
Should also be noted Uxbridge has an almost 10% Hindu population, so there may be some personal vote for Sunak there
Chris Bryant has just said on Sky that the privileges report will be presented to parliament and voted on
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
Chris Bryant as Head of the Standards and privileges committee shows how far politics has sunk
Boris Johnson is a tragic figure. It's hard not to feel a little bit sorry for someone so acutely unaware of his own failings. As I've always said, the real opprobrium should be reserved for the Conservative party and it's MPs, who foisted this damaged and wholly unsuitable man on us when they knew damn well what he was like. If they pay an electoral price for that it will be entirely deserved.
I feel no empathy for Johnson's plight, and for a man of his age he should have learned the grace to accept justified defeat rather than throwing all his toys out of the pram. An awfully spoiled old man.
I agree with that - and it seems he is trying to take the Conservative Party down with him, which shows that it was always about *him*.
But I'd also add that your comment also applies to Corbyn: a man who was defeated twice, and should have resigned as an MP after the report into anti-Semitism within the Labour Party under his leadership came out. And who is also working against his party (even if he is no longer in that party).
Cotbyn and Johnson are both cheeks of the same fetid arse. What a terrible choice we had in 2019, and shame on both the Conservative and Labour for foisting such unsuitable candidates on us.
Indeed. The ghost of Jezbollah still haunts Labour. The barring of Jamie Driscoll is McCarthyite madness. But they are still saddled with lunatics like Burgon and have the increasingly inaccurately-named "Momentum" cranking away on the fringe denouncing anyone who isn't a lunatic.
The Tories had effectively three of these groups in parliament until yesterday. The ERG have held the whip hand for far too long. The BBBites still think Bunter is their meal ticket (or are so stupid that they don't know any better - Gullis et al). The Trussites have never forgiven the non-Trussite MPs for spoiling their fun.
Boris - politically speaking - is dead. He won't be allowed to run as a Tory MP this time - and as he banned so many others from running as or being whipped as Tories, its nice to see it bite him hard. If he tries to come back post GE it will be underneath a different leader who will be loathe to tolerate the remaining BBBites trying to get the old band back together.
Better plan - Trump needs a Veep. Boris is eligible to be President. Go get 'em!
Boris Johnson is a tragic figure. It's hard not to feel a little bit sorry for someone so acutely unaware of his own failings. As I've always said, the real opprobrium should be reserved for the Conservative party and it's MPs, who foisted this damaged and wholly unsuitable man on us when they knew damn well what he was like. If they pay an electoral price for that it will be entirely deserved.
I feel no empathy for Johnson's plight, and for a man of his age he should have learned the grace to accept justified defeat rather than throwing all his toys out of the pram. An awfully spoiled old man.
He could have even continued to fight if he wanted, making the same points and taking it to the people. That has some consistency to it.
Instead he's doing the pram thing but pretending he was forced to do that as if he had no option. If what he alleges is true he'd be mad not to trust his electorate to return him. Yet he does not. Hmmm.
On the other hand: I think BJ did excellently over Ukraine. .
Did he though?
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
By the way, whilst praising Maggie, something similar happened with the Falklands.
It was her Government's announcement of defence cuts, particularly the navy, that greenlit the Argentinians to invade.
But, whether or not you think Britain had a valid right to the islands the fact is that under UN law they did, so her response with the task force was pure Margaret Thatcher.
I'd like to think Maggie would have been equally as robust from the outset with Putin. A No Fly Zone was a necessity.
It’s always less costly to stand up to a bully from the beginning
Mrs Thatcher would not have stood up to Putin but she might have persuaded President Biden to do so. She did the same with Iraq and the first President Bush. As for the Falklands, after the war, her defence cuts resumed. Older PBers will recall John Nott walking out of an interview with Sir Robin Day when questioned on this.
Indeed. Look, for instance, at what happened to Pompey Royal Dockyard. Cuts (closure?) announced, the invasion happens, the mateys work their guts out, and the closures still proceeded.
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
This will be key - though I think given the appearance of Uxbridge now too makes an informal pact more likely, as the LDs give Labour a clear run there.
It *is* easy to forget that the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Labour can often be deep and vicious at local level.
Yes - IIRC the Ukbridge LibDem last time ran on an "only I can win here" slogan, starting at 4%. But I agree that the two by-elections make an unofficial understanding more likely.
We saw in the locals that punters have become well attuned to how tactical voting can oust the Tory. As long as the parties continue to have a realistic view of the world, this could be pulled off.
Back in 2019 Jo Swinson was on her flight of Icarus, with LD activists being directed to campaign in all kinds of hubristically bonkers seats. Until the last week when "oh shit! Defend! Defend!" kicked in. Similarly Momentum flooded Finchley to stop the uppity Jew traitor - no actual plan for what the activists should do whilst there, not a seat they could win, but hubris and anger.
That is the past. Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections: Rutherglen: Labour Mid Beds: LibDems Uxbridge: Labour
In any case, that deal matches the sensible ordering of priorities for each party. Labour need Rutherglen and Uxbridge. Lib Dems will love fighting Mid Beds (and have a decent chance) more than the other two.
That's the sort of understanding that can stick. Sorry, Uxbridge Liberals. Sorry, Bedfordshire Labour.
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
Yes, I fear this may be the case. The Cherwell debacle shows that the Labour NEC are not inclined to indulge the LibDems in the Blue Wall and are prepared to cut off their own nose in the process. Essentially they want to avoid the LibDems being seen as the default choice in southern England outside London.
Labour exists to promote the interests of Labour, not the interests of the Lib Dem’s.
On the other hand: I think BJ did excellently over Ukraine. .
Did he though?
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
By the way, whilst praising Maggie, something similar happened with the Falklands.
It was her Government's announcement of defence cuts, particularly the navy, that greenlit the Argentinians to invade.
But, whether or not you think Britain had a valid right to the islands the fact is that under UN law they did, so her response with the task force was pure Margaret Thatcher.
I'd like to think Maggie would have been equally as robust from the outset with Putin. A No Fly Zone was a necessity.
It’s always less costly to stand up to a bully from the beginning
Mrs Thatcher would not have stood up to Putin but she might have persuaded President Biden to do so. She did the same with Iraq and the first President Bush. As for the Falklands, after the war, her defence cuts resumed. Older PBers will recall John Nott walking out of an interview with Sir Robin Day when questioned on this.
“… Why should the public on this issue believe you, a transient, here today and, if I may say so, gone tomorrow politician ...”
On the other hand: I think BJ did excellently over Ukraine. .
Did he though?
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
By the way, whilst praising Maggie, something similar happened with the Falklands.
It was her Government's announcement of defence cuts, particularly the navy, that greenlit the Argentinians to invade.
But, whether or not you think Britain had a valid right to the islands the fact is that under UN law they did, so her response with the task force was pure Margaret Thatcher.
I'd like to think Maggie would have been equally as robust from the outset with Putin. A No Fly Zone was a necessity.
It’s always less costly to stand up to a bully from the beginning
Possibly, but there is no "pure Margaret Thatcher" about it; it is pretty widely agreed that Admiral Henry Leach was primarily responsible for persuading her to send the task force.
Boris Johnson is a tragic figure. It's hard not to feel a little bit sorry for someone so acutely unaware of his own failings. As I've always said, the real opprobrium should be reserved for the Conservative party and it's MPs, who foisted this damaged and wholly unsuitable man on us when they knew damn well what he was like. If they pay an electoral price for that it will be entirely deserved.
I feel no empathy for Johnson's plight, and for a man of his age he should have learned the grace to accept justified defeat rather than throwing all his toys out of the pram. An awfully spoiled old man.
He could have even continued to fight if he wanted, making the same points and taking it to the people. That has some consistency to it.
Instead he's doing the pram thing but pretending he was forced to do that as if he had no option. If what he alleges is true he'd be mad not to trust his electorate to return him. Yet he does not. Hmmm.
We shall run away from the beaches, we shall run away from the landing grounds, we shall run away from the fields and the streets, we shall run away from the hills; we shall never stop running away.
I think the Tories may hold Mid Beds relatively comfortably. Labour is unlikely to give the LDs a clear run because local activists will not allow it - not just in the constituency itself, but it ones nearby. That should be enough to let the Tories through on a much reduced vote share.
Surely most of us here aren't in a position to judge what the "activists" will do? A lot will be driven by who the organiser and candidate are. It's easy to have a local campaign soft pedal even if the footsoldiers are raring to go because the footsoldiers will take their orders from the local lieutenants and captains. So unless we know the disposition of the candidate and her organiser, we can't be sure.
I think in high profile by elections the activist effect is lessened. That's just a gut feeling. They can stay on message and not seek to soft pedal but if the amorphous mass pick up from general media watching that X is the best approach to beat Y it can happen, and all activism does is keep people thinking of the election, not who to vote for.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
A rare moment when I agree with Josias - I quite like him, and he was very helpful on animal welfare, which of course is an important plus for me. I expect to run across him in the village where I spend a lot of my time, and will be glad to have a drink with him.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
Comments
Calling the troops out against the miners as Home Sec, the botched Dardenelles plan that killed my Great Grandfather and Great Great Uncle, the bombing of the Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons, the Navy cuts of the 1920s and sticking with the Gold Standard at an overvalued rate as CoE.
Often wrong, but surely a "Significant Player" in a variety of roles?
If the idea is that he goes to a safe seat and after the Tories lose the next election and then emerges as the messiah to lead the Tories in opposition then it’s flawed because, as I said, he’s a lazy sack of shit, and being Leader of the Opposition requires hard work and presence. He’s not going to be able to be LotO and swan off around the world filling his bank balance.
There is also the big chance that he would have to take two terms in opposition before the Tories are elected again so he would have to dedicate approx 8 years to hard graft before his reward.
If he thinks he can sit on the back benches until the Tories are electable as a govt then he’s deluded as well because why would any leader of the Tories stand aside for him if they’ve done the hard yards to get near govt. which leaves him having to ferment some sort of takeover at the last minute which would then make the party unelectable anyway.
He really needs to F off and talk nonsense to idiots who pay to hear it and don’t realise they can just go on YouTube and hear his bullshit for free from past utterances.
But I'd also add that your comment also applies to Corbyn: a man who was defeated twice, and should have resigned as an MP after the report into anti-Semitism within the Labour Party under his leadership came out. And who is also working against his party (even if he is no longer in that party).
Cotbyn and Johnson are both cheeks of the same fetid arse. What a terrible choice we had in 2019, and shame on both the Conservative and Labour for foisting such unsuitable candidates on us.
But follow the money, the activists, and the high profile visits... they'll almost all be heading to west London.
I don’t think we had much influence over what the US did in Afghanistan - certainly insufficient to stop their withdrawal. But beyond that, it was the reaction, or rather lack of it, to Putin’s seizure of Crimea which determined his later actions. I think the Afghan withdrawal is way overrated as a factor.
It's no fault of his, of course, that he lives this flimsy political afterlife. He deserves better; anyone would. But at least he isn't in any sense unique in being mistreated in this way. He's just a richer trove than most.
At moment like this, few people are willing to say anything positive, but we're all mixed bags.
But a recall petition is perfectly logical assuming that the privileges committee thing goes into abeyance while he is not an MP. He gets elected, it reconvenes and suspends him. The electorate did not in theory know about that suspension when it elected him.
Although tbf I don't believe Corbyn published a covert coded hitlist like Johnson did with his awful self-pitying essay
Look, no doubt there are people about who'll campaign from Labour in Mid Beds (and LDs who'll go to Uxbridge). Candidates will loudly proclaim their great prospects. But the HEAVY incentive for a Labour activist is to get a good reception with loads of comrades pushing for a stonking win in Johnson's old seat. It's bloody specialist to want to push water uphill in Flitwick when you can do that. And that reality will quickly become obvious on the ground.
But being PM involves a whole load of nitty-gritty, boring details work. And I reckon he just could not be bothered with those sorts of things a lot of the time, and trusted 'friends' to do it without much follow-up.
Whereas someone who found school less easy, who might be slightly less intelligent, might be a much better PM - because they're used to working blooming hard to get results.
Other may obviously disagree with this.
Trump indicted, Johnson resigns…
Right wing populism has failed. Fuelling anger and lies but no solutions for people.
Time to get rid of their mouthpieces in Europe too: Le Pen, Salvini, Orbán, Wilders, AFD, VB and many others !
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1667434157654327297?s=20
These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others.
And while I agree that MRD applies she did seem to take it further than she needed to.
However, we shall see!
I’ve no great love for her - she was an awful PM - but while she’s stuck around and stuck her oar in, she’s done so quite cheerfully. A much better senior backbencher than PM.
To @NickPalmer’s point, we are all mixed bags, and I do have a small degree of empathy for Boris’s failings in terms of laziness, and also in his enjoyment of intellectual breadth. But: that aside he is fundamentally a pretty nasty guy; a manipulator and a user - essentially a narcissist (I flatter myself that I’m not!) who uses his gifts for bluster and gladhanding entirely for personal gain.
In Oct 2021, CIA Counterintel warned that an unusually high number of US spies were being killed, captured, or compromised.
In Jan 2021, Trump stole documents on these kind of informants - and may have shared them.
https://twitter.com/TristanSnell/status/1667314120981348358
This is, of course, pure speculation.
But even as President, there’s no real good reason for him to take an interest in the particular identities of active agents, and there’s zero excuse for playing with such secrets, on which lives depend, out of office.
But yes, he is right.
https://twitter.com/DannyBeales/status/1667298180592009216?s=20
The legislation seems perfectly clear. The relevant condition for the recall process is simply that "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/25/body/2016-03-04
So if Johnson were re-elected for a different seat in a by-election, and then suspended as a result of this report, he would be subject to the recall process.
“I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.”
Letter from Cromwell to Sir William Spring. Sept. 1643.
'The Duke doesn't like Shylock, but is careful not to show it, as a judge must be impartial.'
Thing is that the SNP in 2015 was a national outcry against The Vow. The national outcry against the Tories doesn't have a unified direction - it isn't that every man jack of you will vote Labour. Its Anyone But Conservative.
So there is a danger here of dickhead Labour absolutists (and the party is full of that mentality) thinking they MUST win every seat no mater how mental that is. Mid Beds looks LibDem all day long, so if Labour go and split the vote like they did in Finchley and Golders Green in 2019, the Tories could hold it.
Loads of his supporters make that comparison. You disagree with them, I disagree with them, and I don't think there's enough of them to make a difference. But they do walk among us in reasonable numbers.
Wow. Disney+ changed the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark...
https://twitter.com/McJesse/status/1667296912943493120
And this matters for me. I most of all want the Tories out at the next election. They need to be on the end of the most vivid spanking possible. Last time I "wasted" my vote on the Lib Dems on a point of principle. This time I'm inclined to vote against the Tories in the most effective way possible. That looked and still looks like the SNP here, but if I genuinely believed Labour were in with a better chance, it would be Labour. The MRP was interesting, but for me it landed some way short of believable. I hope we get more of these before I actually need to decide because I'm definitely of a mind to follow the crowd this time.
Back in 2019 Jo Swinson was on her flight of Icarus, with LD activists being directed to campaign in all kinds of hubristically bonkers seats. Until the last week when "oh shit! Defend! Defend!" kicked in. Similarly Momentum flooded Finchley to stop the uppity Jew traitor - no actual plan for what the activists should do whilst there, not a seat they could win, but hubris and anger.
That is the past. Its been reported quite widely that Starmer and Davey get on very well and have conversations. So I assume that they have already Tehran Conferenced the coming byelections:
Rutherglen: Labour
Mid Beds: LibDems
Uxbridge: Labour
Sources and methods will have to have been abandoned or changed.
And the future recruitment of foreign assets will seriously have been hampered by this, It’s a huge blow to the confidence of agents that the US takes their security seriously, when the guy who played with their lives has a serious shot at being re-elected.
Whether he was malign, or simply an incompetent fool, this, as with much else, ought to be disqualificatory.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1667448668360695808
The Tories had effectively three of these groups in parliament until yesterday. The ERG have held the whip hand for far too long. The BBBites still think Bunter is their meal ticket (or are so stupid that they don't know any better - Gullis et al). The Trussites have never forgiven the non-Trussite MPs for spoiling their fun.
Boris - politically speaking - is dead. He won't be allowed to run as a Tory MP this time - and as he banned so many others from running as or being whipped as Tories, its nice to see it bite him hard. If he tries to come back post GE it will be underneath a different leader who will be loathe to tolerate the remaining BBBites trying to get the old band back together.
Better plan - Trump needs a Veep. Boris is eligible to be President. Go get 'em!
Instead he's doing the pram thing but pretending he was forced to do that as if he had no option. If what he alleges is true he'd be mad not to trust his electorate to return him. Yet he does not. Hmmm.
Publicly Labour will commit to win both seats but privately won’t bother to campaign much in one at all
That's the sort of understanding that can stick. Sorry, Uxbridge Liberals. Sorry, Bedfordshire Labour.
Extremely rude, but entirely fair.