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1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it.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.
I don't think this is right at all. Thatcher was wary of military interventions. The Falklands are a very different case from Ukraine. That was British territory being invaded. Ukraine isn't.
My personal view is that Britain was right in both cases. Right to repel Argentina's invasion, and right to aid Ukraine in defending itself against the Russian invasion. Thatcher and Boris got it right. But I'm really not convinced Thatcher would have been as pro-intervention as Boris was.
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
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.
Or to put it another way, the Cherwell episode showed that Labour exists to promote the interests of Labour, not progress or social justice. The upshot of the NEC shenanigans is that Cherwell has a minority Conservative administration and not a Lab/LD/Green one.
Always helpful to know these things before considering a tactical vote.
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.
Had Banff and Buchan still existed I would vote SNP to get rid of the lickspittle Duguid. Yes I know the SNP are also as bent as a nine bob note. But less so than the billions-of-our-money-stolen Tories.
Post boundary change I am in Aberdeenshire Central. Which is predominantly the old Gordon seat which was LD recently. So I will vote for my own party with good conscience and hope others do the same. In the new AN&ME seat I expect it still needs an SNP vote to dislodge the Tory.
The wildcard in Scotland is what happens to the SNP. Its all gone a bit quiet with their scandals, but if charges are brought and infighting begins then who knows where we go.
What if - and this is speculation - Scottish voters decide its a plague on both their houses? As with any party there will be a core who would vote for them even if they were openly shooting people in the street. But if voting SNP to dislodge the Tory doesn't wash because people want to punish the SNP as well? Westminster election seen as less important and thus more punishable than a Holyrood election?
All kinds of mad things could happen. Including Labour taking AN&ME despite having no activists.
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
It's not about anyone else today, it's about Johnson. He lost big, suck it up!
*) 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?
Multiple things can be true at the same time. People went hard on the idea Boris was going to no deal for instance in part because they disliked him so much they assumed he would do the worst thing possible. They said he wanted no deal, not merely that he said he would be willing to.
That torpedoed their campaign plans when he pretty quickly did a deal. One he now calls crap, but still a deal. It made portraying him as totally reckless much harder in the GE. They couldn't react to him when he wasn't acting as a caricature.
It's not a 50 50 thing, but people did screw up in response to him.
Journalists are still peddling this line that Johnson will continue to hold a lot of political sway . Chris Mason of the BBC has fallen into this ridiculous view .
When 80% of the public think you’re a pathological liar there’s no come back . The public will not forget or forgive Johnson for partying while people were dying .
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.
Yes, you're probably right on the principle but I think you have it backwards. By-elections are relatively low profile, hence the tendency towards lower turnouts. I think activists play a much bigger role in by-elections than in general elections when it's saturated coverage on the tv and in papers. Get Out The Vote matters at any time but especially in lower-profile elections.
I suspect media coverage on the coming by-elections will be skewed towards Uxbridge, too, but let's see if there are any star candidates before we decide that.
As I said: 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.
That section of the legislation applies to MPs. Johnson is not an MP. I can’t see how any action now can apply to Johnson at some future point in time should he be re-elected, which appeared to me to be the suggestion being made. The legislation does not talk about non-MPs who might get elected at some future time.
Were Johnson to be re-elected, the Committee of Standards could recommend anew a suspension based on Partygate lies and the House could vote on that. That is possible. I think it is unlikely because a new election, when the electorate would have been informed of everything that has happened, would confer a new mandate on Johnson. Parliament is, however, sovereign and can do whatever it wants ultimately.
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
You think a man who advertises himself in a mens mag in his underpants together with details of what he was looking for is the type of person we need.?
Angela Rayner has just said on BBC that Labour will fight both by-elections ‘to win’.
She is a dodo. They are hardly going to fight to lose.
Boris is the political dodo.
Ghastly. Both of them. Just hearing Rayner's diatribes makes me reach for the off button.
Angela Rayner is a huge asset to Labour and I love her diatribes . Her back story will always make her seem much more empathic with the lives of many voters.
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.
This is true and fair. Typically the argument is made the other way round by blaming the LDs for existing to promote the LDs, not Labour as is right and proper.
Journalists are still peddling this line that Johnson will continue to hold a lot of political sway . Chris Mason of the BBC has fallen into this ridiculous view .
When 80% of the public think you’re a pathological liar there’s no come back . The public will not forget or forgive Johnson for partying while people were dying .
No amount of time will heal Johnson’s image .
Corbyn still has a following inside Labour despite the demonstrable contempt he inspires among the electorate. Political parties are very strange beasts. Their internal machinations matter much more most of the time than what the electorate thinks.
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
Uxbridge in fact has the 13th highest Hindu population in the UK, there will likely therefore be a personal vote for Sunak there.
Leicester East has the highest Hindu population in the UK and the Tories made gains there in May and had the best Conservative result in the local elections anywhere in England in Leicester
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.
I see the Ukrainian counter-offensive is underway.
I shudder to think of the casualties their infantry will suffer in taking those trenches and dragons teeth. Even if they do succeed it's not going to be pretty and there will be a heavy price to pay in blood.
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.
Typically generous of you Nick
Very noble of Nick. I don't make a habit of judging celebrity figures (well except politicians) that I have never met, but I have judged Johnson and a long time ago. I despise the venal self-agrandising Charlatan. His behaviour over the last 24 hours has confirmed I.wsd right all along. I wouldn't **** over him if he was on fire!
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
Sir Chris Bryant by the way
I heard Sir Chris on radio yesterday. I thought he was excellent. Labour should give him a speaking part from here on in. He sounds uncharacteristically human for an MP and charmingly self effacing.
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
You think a man who advertises himself in a mens mag in his underpants together with details of what he was looking for is the type of person we need.?
Not illegal, not coercive and not likely to be offensive to regular purveyors of Gaydar so who gives a fuck?
Journalists are still peddling this line that Johnson will continue to hold a lot of political sway . Chris Mason of the BBC has fallen into this ridiculous view .
When 80% of the public think you’re a pathological liar there’s no come back . The public will not forget or forgive Johnson for partying while people were dying .
No amount of time will heal Johnson’s image .
He'll still have poiltcal sway in whatever the thing is that calls itself the Tory party. Whether they have sway with the public is another q.
If there's one thing that could make me sympathetic to Boris Johnson it's Guy Vertwatstadt sounding his mouth off.
I have a soft spot for him. He's a complete basketcase but he sure doesn't hold back, including when he thinks his beloved EU is not living up to what he wants it to be.
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.
I don't think this is right at all. Thatcher was wary of military interventions. The Falklands are a very different case from Ukraine. That was British territory being invaded. Ukraine isn't.
My personal view is that Britain was right in both cases. Right to repel Argentina's invasion, and right to aid Ukraine in defending itself against the Russian invasion. Thatcher and Boris got it right. But I'm really not convinced Thatcher would have been as pro-intervention as Boris was.
Thatcher was one of the earliest to take a hard line against Serbia in Yugoslavia and advocated arming the Bosnians.
I see the Ukrainian counter-offensive is underway.
I shudder to think of the casualties their infantry will suffer in taking those trenches and dragons teeth. Even if they do succeed it's not going to be pretty and there will be a heavy price to pay in blood.
This is all so tragic.
It is unbearable and the attack on the dam utterly unforgivable
In the scale of things the Johnson soap opera is actually an insult to what is going on in Ukriane
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
What utter bollocks; it's a form of the usual Brexit-voters-are-thick stuff we see on here occasionally, and is one of the big reasons that remain lost.
People don’t seem to understand what “informal” means.
Publicly Labour will commit to win both seats but privately won’t bother to campaign much in one at all
Yes, that's absolutely right.
No this is the Labour Party we are talking about. Such common sense is way beyond their wit and wisdom. They'll probably pump all their resources into Mid Beds and lose both seats.
I wonder if Johnson has had talks with one of the prospective bidders for the Telegraph. DMGT, in particular. A “consultant editor” post would serve both very neatly.
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
You think a man who advertises himself in a mens mag in his underpants together with details of what he was looking for is the type of person we need.?
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
Sir Chris Bryant by the way
I heard Sir Chris on radio yesterday. I thought he was excellent. Labour should give him a speaking part from here on in. He sounds uncharacteristically human for an MP and charmingly self effacing.
There is a story that he is on the shortlist to become the new Rector of Exeter College at Oxford University so he may well be leaving Parliament
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
You think a man who advertises himself in a mens mag in his underpants together with details of what he was looking for is the type of person we need.?
Not illegal, not coercive and not likely to be offensive to regular purveyors of Gaydar so who gives a fuck?
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
You think a man who advertises himself in a mens mag in his underpants together with details of what he was looking for is the type of person we need.?
Not illegal, not coercive and not likely to be offensive to regular purveyors of Gaydar so who gives a fuck?
It was only ignored because he was a nonentity of an MP from somewhere in the wilds of Wales. Imagine the furore if someone in a senior cabinet roll had done it. We are talking about Standards in public life.. he shows how low the bar has become in political life
Journalists are still peddling this line that Johnson will continue to hold a lot of political sway . Chris Mason of the BBC has fallen into this ridiculous view .
When 80% of the public think you’re a pathological liar there’s no come back . The public will not forget or forgive Johnson for partying while people were dying .
No amount of time will heal Johnson’s image .
He'll still have poiltcal sway in whatever the thing is that calls itself the Tory party. Whether they have sway with the public is another q.
He will always have his massive GE win. They ensures a faction of support and influence as moribund Tories think about how to win in future.
The first step is to hope opposition elect a totally unsuitable leader and double down by portraying him as the messiah.
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.
I don't think this is right at all. Thatcher was wary of military interventions. The Falklands are a very different case from Ukraine. That was British territory being invaded. Ukraine isn't.
My personal view is that Britain was right in both cases. Right to repel Argentina's invasion, and right to aid Ukraine in defending itself against the Russian invasion. Thatcher and Boris got it right. But I'm really not convinced Thatcher would have been as pro-intervention as Boris was.
Thatcher was one of the earliest to take a hard line against Serbia in Yugoslavia and advocated arming the Bosnians.
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.
I don't think this is right at all. Thatcher was wary of military interventions. The Falklands are a very different case from Ukraine. That was British territory being invaded. Ukraine isn't.
My personal view is that Britain was right in both cases. Right to repel Argentina's invasion, and right to aid Ukraine in defending itself against the Russian invasion. Thatcher and Boris got it right. But I'm really not convinced Thatcher would have been as pro-intervention as Boris was.
Thatcher was one of the earliest to take a hard line against Serbia in Yugoslavia and advocated arming the Bosnians.
Excellent point
Surely Mrs Thatcher was out of office by this time?
I see the Ukrainian counter-offensive is underway.
I shudder to think of the casualties their infantry will suffer in taking those trenches and dragons teeth. Even if they do succeed it's not going to be pretty and there will be a heavy price to pay in blood.
This is all so tragic.
It seems like the offensive is ahead of schedule, so praying for a successful conclusion soon.
Bearing in mind that Boris is technically still an MP, is it possible that the government not appoint him to Chiltern or Northstead and keep him in the Commons long enough for the sanction process to be completed?
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.
That section of the legislation applies to MPs. Johnson is not an MP. I can’t see how any action now can apply to Johnson at some future point in time should he be re-elected, which appeared to me to be the suggestion being made. The legislation does not talk about non-MPs who might get elected at some future time.
Were Johnson to be re-elected, the Committee of Standards could recommend anew a suspension based on Partygate lies and the House could vote on that. That is possible. I think it is unlikely because a new election, when the electorate would have been informed of everything that has happened, would confer a new mandate on Johnson. Parliament is, however, sovereign and can do whatever it wants ultimately.
Perusing the reporting of Bryant’s comments this morning, I can’t see anything that fits Big G’s interpretation that Johnson could be prevented from standing in the future. I think that was a misinterpretation.
Bryant did say that the Committee could revise its report and accuse Johnson of contempt of Parliament as well, and that this would affect how people see Johnson going forwards.
Angela Rayner has just said on BBC that Labour will fight both by-elections ‘to win’.
And Jo Swinson said she was running to be PM. Neither could really say anything else.
Didn’t the LDs put the PM Swinson stuff on their literature entirely of their own free will? No requirement to do that.
I think the fact that Swinson has a better chance of making a comeback than Johnson does says it all.
I regret the one chance and you're out aspect of politics. Swinson made some big mistakes, possibly due to inexperience. I think she could have learnt from those mistakes and be an effective leader.
Bearing in mind that Boris is technically still an MP, is it possible that the government not appoint him to Chiltern or Northstead and keep him in the Commons long enough for the sanction process to be completed?
Possible, I believe… but what would it achieve?
I think the question is whether the House will vote on the Privileges Committee report. Reporting last night suggested that will happen, Johnson’s resignation notwithstanding. So we’ll find out the Commons’ view anyway.
Forcing the constituency to go through a recall petition would just be a pointless waste of time and money.
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!
Was yours from Starmer or was it a regional one?
Starmer. It read like a routine fund-raiser, though - no analysis of the seats or anything like that, simply "Let's get on with winning the by-elections".
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.
That section of the legislation applies to MPs. Johnson is not an MP. I can’t see how any action now can apply to Johnson at some future point in time should he be re-elected, which appeared to me to be the suggestion being made. The legislation does not talk about non-MPs who might get elected at some future time.
Were Johnson to be re-elected, the Committee of Standards could recommend anew a suspension based on Partygate lies and the House could vote on that. That is possible. I think it is unlikely because a new election, when the electorate would have been informed of everything that has happened, would confer a new mandate on Johnson. Parliament is, however, sovereign and can do whatever it wants ultimately.
Perusing the reporting of Bryant’s comments this morning, I can’t see anything that fits Big G’s interpretation that Johnson could be prevented from standing in the future. I think that was a misinterpretation.
Bryant did say that the Committee could revise its report and accuse Johnson of contempt of Parliament as well, and that this would affect how people see Johnson going forwards.
It was the impression he gave me and possibly was in the context of standing in the remainder of this parliament
If I have misunderstood Chris Bryant's remarks I apologise
Bearing in mind that Boris is technically still an MP, is it possible that the government not appoint him to Chiltern or Northstead and keep him in the Commons long enough for the sanction process to be completed?
Possible, I believe… but what would it achieve?
I think the question is whether the House will vote on the Privileges Committee report. Reporting last night suggested that will happen, Johnson’s resignation notwithstanding. So we’ll find out the Commons’ view anyway.
Forcing the constituency to go through a recall petition would just be a pointless waste of time and money.
Not the whole thing, just long enough for the Commons to find him guilty of misleading Parliament. I just have a feeling that Boris will soon be using the "The Commons never found me guilty of anything" line.
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.
I don't think this is right at all. Thatcher was wary of military interventions. The Falklands are a very different case from Ukraine. That was British territory being invaded. Ukraine isn't.
My personal view is that Britain was right in both cases. Right to repel Argentina's invasion, and right to aid Ukraine in defending itself against the Russian invasion. Thatcher and Boris got it right. But I'm really not convinced Thatcher would have been as pro-intervention as Boris was.
Thatcher was one of the earliest to take a hard line against Serbia in Yugoslavia and advocated arming the Bosnians.
Excellent point
Surely Mrs Thatcher was out of office by 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!
Was yours from Starmer or was it a regional one?
Starmer. It read like a routine fund-raiser, though - no analysis of the seats or anything like that, simply "Let's get on with winning the by-elections".
Nick, I also had the same e-mail here in the Black Country. It had also crossed my mind that there was no mention of Mid-Beds.
The "honours list" farce is the final disgrace of a disgraceful politician. Having now read the full list I actually feel quite nauseous. It is a dishonourable and despicable list of creeps and toadies. It will become proverbial as the last shameful and contemptuous act by the second worst PM in British History (the worst is still Liz Truss). It is simply outrageous.
As for the Conservatives: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Much as people will dislike the man and the list, the convention is that departing PM has such a list. Like the military, you salute the rank, not the man. And for a classic bit of what aboutory - I give you Tom Watson, a man who hounded an innocent man to his death and others, with no evidence beyond the ravings of a convicted paedophile, and chose his targets because they were Tories.
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
Sir Chris Bryant by the way
I heard Sir Chris on radio yesterday. I thought he was excellent. Labour should give him a speaking part from here on in. He sounds uncharacteristically human for an MP and charmingly self effacing.
Sir Chris was once a Church of England curate of course at All Saints High Wycombe and at Oxford in the University Conservative Association, before joining Labour and ultimately becoming a Labour MP
If there's one thing that could make me sympathetic to Boris Johnson it's Guy Vertwatstadt sounding his mouth off.
I have a soft spot for him. He's a complete basketcase but he sure doesn't hold back, including when he thinks his beloved EU is not living up to what he wants it to be.
He’s a very talented politician and quite a unique one: the closest we have to a rabble-rousing, bellicose and charismatic centrist. Who else exists in that space? In Britain perhaps Jess Phillips and Alistair Campbell. Anna Soubry? Back in the day Lloyd George. Quite a rarity.
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Bearing in mind that Boris is technically still an MP, is it possible that the government not appoint him to Chiltern or Northstead and keep him in the Commons long enough for the sanction process to be completed?
Possible, I believe… but what would it achieve?
I think the question is whether the House will vote on the Privileges Committee report. Reporting last night suggested that will happen, Johnson’s resignation notwithstanding. So we’ll find out the Commons’ view anyway.
Forcing the constituency to go through a recall petition would just be a pointless waste of time and money.
Chris Bryant absolutely confirmed the report would be put before parliament and voted on and this morning it has been confirmed it will be released very soon
The report dropping into the public domain should ensure the end of Johnson's political career
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Isn't the point that is being made that if he stood again and was elected as an MP he'd immediately be suspended for 10 days and liable to a local petition for a recall which would immediately lead to another election.
Bearing in mind that Boris is technically still an MP, is it possible that the government not appoint him to Chiltern or Northstead and keep him in the Commons long enough for the sanction process to be completed?
I want to see that happen in the other resignation, just for the headline it could generate:
The "honours list" farce is the final disgrace of a disgraceful politician. Having now read the full list I actually feel quite nauseous. It is a dishonourable and despicable list of creeps and toadies. It will become proverbial as the last shameful and contemptuous act by the second worst PM in British History (the worst is still Liz Truss). It is simply outrageous.
As for the Conservatives: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Much as people will dislike the man and the list, the convention is that departing PM has such a list. Like the military, you salute the rank, not the man. And for a classic bit of what aboutory - I give you Tom Watson, a man who hounded an innocent man to his death and others, with no evidence beyond the ravings of a convicted paedophile, and chose his targets because they were Tories.
Talking of conventions, what happened to the convention that retired PMs were entitled to an earldom?
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Isn't the point that is being made that if he stood again and was elected as an MP he'd immediately be suspended for 10 days and liable to a local petition for a recall which would immediately lead to another election.
I suspect he would be able to claim that, having been outside of Parliament for much longer than the 10 day suspension he had already effectively been through the recall process. The electors would have chosen him in full knowledge of his verdict. I don't want to see him back but I think he would win any argument on that basis. All the more so if it is a couple of years down the line.
Remember he sees himself as Churchill so I do think he is playing the long game here. He will disassociate himself from the forthcoming Tory GE defeat and then watch Starmer struggle to make any real impact on the problems the country is facing. Then a nice safe seat for the King over the Water to slip into.
The "honours list" farce is the final disgrace of a disgraceful politician. Having now read the full list I actually feel quite nauseous. It is a dishonourable and despicable list of creeps and toadies. It will become proverbial as the last shameful and contemptuous act by the second worst PM in British History (the worst is still Liz Truss). It is simply outrageous.
As for the Conservatives: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Much as people will dislike the man and the list, the convention is that departing PM has such a list. Like the military, you salute the rank, not the man. And for a classic bit of what aboutory - I give you Tom Watson, a man who hounded an innocent man to his death and others, with no evidence beyond the ravings of a convicted paedophile, and chose his targets because they were Tories.
Talking of conventions, what happened to the convention that retired PMs were entitled to an earldom?
If there's one thing that could make me sympathetic to Boris Johnson it's Guy Vertwatstadt sounding his mouth off.
I have a soft spot for him. He's a complete basketcase but he sure doesn't hold back, including when he thinks his beloved EU is not living up to what he wants it to be.
He came to our house in Uccle for a dinner party when he was Willy De Clercq's passepartout though I have no recollection of it as I was 10 and was probably doing my devoir or playing with my Scalextric. According to my late mother, he disappeared into the scullery and spontaneously started washing the dishes at about 11pm.
If there's one thing that could make me sympathetic to Boris Johnson it's Guy Vertwatstadt sounding his mouth off.
I have a soft spot for him. He's a complete basketcase but he sure doesn't hold back, including when he thinks his beloved EU is not living up to what he wants it to be.
He’s a very talented politician and quite a unique one: the closest we have to a rabble-rousing, bellicose and charismatic centrist. Who else exists in that space? In Britain perhaps Jess Phillips and Alistair Campbell. Anna Soubry? Back in the day Lloyd George. Quite a rarity.
Something to be thankful for given the gargoyles on that list.
The "honours list" farce is the final disgrace of a disgraceful politician. Having now read the full list I actually feel quite nauseous. It is a dishonourable and despicable list of creeps and toadies. It will become proverbial as the last shameful and contemptuous act by the second worst PM in British History (the worst is still Liz Truss). It is simply outrageous.
As for the Conservatives: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Much as people will dislike the man and the list, the convention is that departing PM has such a list. Like the military, you salute the rank, not the man. And for a classic bit of what aboutory - I give you Tom Watson, a man who hounded an innocent man to his death and others, with no evidence beyond the ravings of a convicted paedophile, and chose his targets because they were Tories.
Talking of conventions, what happened to the convention that retired PMs were entitled to an earldom?
Fairly common until Eden in 1957, then Super Mac many years later in 1984. None since.
The "honours list" farce is the final disgrace of a disgraceful politician. Having now read the full list I actually feel quite nauseous. It is a dishonourable and despicable list of creeps and toadies. It will become proverbial as the last shameful and contemptuous act by the second worst PM in British History (the worst is still Liz Truss). It is simply outrageous.
As for the Conservatives: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Much as people will dislike the man and the list, the convention is that departing PM has such a list. Like the military, you salute the rank, not the man. And for a classic bit of what aboutory - I give you Tom Watson, a man who hounded an innocent man to his death and others, with no evidence beyond the ravings of a convicted paedophile, and chose his targets because they were Tories.
The convention should be ended. Not all PMs have done it, so its not a very strong convention.
The "honours list" farce is the final disgrace of a disgraceful politician. Having now read the full list I actually feel quite nauseous. It is a dishonourable and despicable list of creeps and toadies. It will become proverbial as the last shameful and contemptuous act by the second worst PM in British History (the worst is still Liz Truss). It is simply outrageous.
As for the Conservatives: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Much as people will dislike the man and the list, the convention is that departing PM has such a list. Like the military, you salute the rank, not the man. And for a classic bit of what aboutory - I give you Tom Watson, a man who hounded an innocent man to his death and others, with no evidence beyond the ravings of a convicted paedophile, and chose his targets because they were Tories.
Talking of conventions, what happened to the convention that retired PMs were entitled to an earldom?
The heirs get elected as hereditary peers, cf. the House of Lords by-election next week when 2 heirs of PM earldoms contest the Lib Dem section. All current members of the House of Lords are eligible to vote.
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
That’s his job, though I’d say exposes, rather than shows. And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
You think a man who advertises himself in a mens mag in his underpants together with details of what he was looking for is the type of person we need.?
How many decades ago is that now ? That such a thing determines your view if him to this day speaks volumes about you, and says nothing about him. He’s a married man and well respected MP.
I don’t vote Labour, but he’s a great asset to the Commons.
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Isn't the point that is being made that if he stood again and was elected as an MP he'd immediately be suspended for 10 days and liable to a local petition for a recall which would immediately lead to another election.
I suspect he would be able to claim that, having been outside of Parliament for much longer than the 10 day suspension he had already effectively been through the recall process. The electors would have chosen him in full knowledge of his verdict. I don't want to see him back but I think he would win any argument on that basis. All the more so if it is a couple of years down the line.
Remember he sees himself as Churchill so I do think he is playing the long game here. He will disassociate himself from the forthcoming Tory GE defeat and then watch Starmer struggle to make any real impact on the problems the country is facing. Then a nice safe seat for the King over the Water to slip into.
Except Boris will be 64 by the election after next, and probably not a fit sprightly 64 at that. He'll also be bald as a coot, which matters for Boris. The hair is his brand.
I'm sure returning from the wilderness is the story he will tell himself. I'm sure he will collect some deluded followers that way. But it is a delusion, and one that will harm the Conservatives until it finally dies.
Parliament and the public had better blooming well see that report, though.
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Isn't the point that is being made that if he stood again and was elected as an MP he'd immediately be suspended for 10 days and liable to a local petition for a recall which would immediately lead to another election.
I suspect he would be able to claim that, having been outside of Parliament for much longer than the 10 day suspension he had already effectively been through the recall process. The electors would have chosen him in full knowledge of his verdict. I don't want to see him back but I think he would win any argument on that basis. All the more so if it is a couple of years down the line.
Remember he sees himself as Churchill so I do think he is playing the long game here. He will disassociate himself from the forthcoming Tory GE defeat and then watch Starmer struggle to make any real impact on the problems the country is facing. Then a nice safe seat for the King over the Water to slip into.
Except Boris will be 64 by the election after next, and probably not a fit sprightly 64 at that. He'll also be bald as a coot, which matters for Boris. The hair is his brand.
I'm sure returning from the wilderness is the story he will tell himself. I'm sure he will collect some deluded followers that way. But it is a delusion, and one that will harm the Conservatives until it finally dies.
Parliament and the public had better blooming well see that report, though.
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Isn't the point that is being made that if he stood again and was elected as an MP he'd immediately be suspended for 10 days and liable to a local petition for a recall which would immediately lead to another election.
I suspect he would be able to claim that, having been outside of Parliament for much longer than the 10 day suspension he had already effectively been through the recall process. The electors would have chosen him in full knowledge of his verdict. I don't want to see him back but I think he would win any argument on that basis. All the more so if it is a couple of years down the line.
Remember he sees himself as Churchill so I do think he is playing the long game here. He will disassociate himself from the forthcoming Tory GE defeat and then watch Starmer struggle to make any real impact on the problems the country is facing. Then a nice safe seat for the King over the Water to slip into.
Except Boris will be 64 by the election after next, and probably not a fit sprightly 64 at that. He'll also be bald as a coot, which matters for Boris. The hair is his brand.
I'm sure returning from the wilderness is the story he will tell himself. I'm sure he will collect some deluded followers that way. But it is a delusion, and one that will harm the Conservatives until it finally dies.
Parliament and the public had better blooming well see that report, though.
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.
Had Banff and Buchan still existed I would vote SNP to get rid of the lickspittle Duguid. Yes I know the SNP are also as bent as a nine bob note. But less so than the billions-of-our-money-stolen Tories.
Post boundary change I am in Aberdeenshire Central. Which is predominantly the old Gordon seat which was LD recently. So I will vote for my own party with good conscience and hope others do the same. In the new AN&ME seat I expect it still needs an SNP vote to dislodge the Tory.
The wildcard in Scotland is what happens to the SNP. Its all gone a bit quiet with their scandals, but if charges are brought and infighting begins then who knows where we go.
What if - and this is speculation - Scottish voters decide its a plague on both their houses?
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Yes. He can run in these byelections if he wants. The issue is that surely he cannot do so as a Conservative.
The Big Question is what the BBBites do now. Its apparently now a fight to save Brexit - the only reason they have removed him is in a plot to overturn the referendum is you listen to people like Campbell-Bannerman.
We have already seen people like Ann Widdicombe defect rightwards. Could a Tory schism be on the cards? Boris to lead an exodus to ReFUK?
As I said: 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
If I were Davey, I’d be wary of what happened in 1997.
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Isn't the point that is being made that if he stood again and was elected as an MP he'd immediately be suspended for 10 days and liable to a local petition for a recall which would immediately lead to another election.
I suspect he would be able to claim that, having been outside of Parliament for much longer than the 10 day suspension he had already effectively been through the recall process. The electors would have chosen him in full knowledge of his verdict. I don't want to see him back but I think he would win any argument on that basis. All the more so if it is a couple of years down the line.
Remember he sees himself as Churchill so I do think he is playing the long game here. He will disassociate himself from the forthcoming Tory GE defeat and then watch Starmer struggle to make any real impact on the problems the country is facing. Then a nice safe seat for the King over the Water to slip into.
Except Boris will be 64 by the election after next, and probably not a fit sprightly 64 at that. He'll also be bald as a coot, which matters for Boris. The hair is his brand.
I'm sure returning from the wilderness is the story he will tell himself. I'm sure he will collect some deluded followers that way. But it is a delusion, and one that will harm the Conservatives until it finally dies.
Parliament and the public had better blooming well see that report, though.
When you get older losing your hair Many years from now Will you still impregnate other people's wives? Spreading Covid ruining lives?
If your barbecue got out of hand Sick upon the floor Will we still need you, will we still feed you When you're sixty-four
Angela Rayner has just said on BBC that Labour will fight both by-elections ‘to win’.
And Jo Swinson said she was running to be PM. Neither could really say anything else.
Didn’t the LDs put the PM Swinson stuff on their literature entirely of their own free will? No requirement to do that.
I think the fact that Swinson has a better chance of making a comeback than Johnson does says it all.
I regret the one chance and you're out aspect of politics. Swinson made some big mistakes, possibly due to inexperience. I think she could have learnt from those mistakes and be an effective leader.
Ed Miliband is a better politician now then a decade ago.
That he didn't imitate his brother after his defeat in 2015 is to his credit.
He's also a better local MP since his near defeat in 2019.
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Isn't the point that is being made that if he stood again and was elected as an MP he'd immediately be suspended for 10 days and liable to a local petition for a recall which would immediately lead to another election.
I suspect he would be able to claim that, having been outside of Parliament for much longer than the 10 day suspension he had already effectively been through the recall process. The electors would have chosen him in full knowledge of his verdict. I don't want to see him back but I think he would win any argument on that basis. All the more so if it is a couple of years down the line.
Remember he sees himself as Churchill so I do think he is playing the long game here. He will disassociate himself from the forthcoming Tory GE defeat and then watch Starmer struggle to make any real impact on the problems the country is facing. Then a nice safe seat for the King over the Water to slip into.
Except Boris will be 64 by the election after next, and probably not a fit sprightly 64 at that. He'll also be bald as a coot, which matters for Boris. The hair is his brand.
Trump still going strong despite endless criminality and attempting to overthrown democracy.
I don’t think he was brought down over the parties per se. If he had apologised and admitted wrongdoing there would have been no Privileges investigation. Yes, political damage to be sure, but nothing more. He was brought down by misleading the House and sending his Cabinet out to lie for him over Pincher.
Furthermore, Johnson and Trump are both fundamentally in the same place. Out of office and likely scheming to get back into office. Difference being that Johnson is not facing serious criminal indictments.
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.
Had Banff and Buchan still existed I would vote SNP to get rid of the lickspittle Duguid. Yes I know the SNP are also as bent as a nine bob note. But less so than the billions-of-our-money-stolen Tories.
Post boundary change I am in Aberdeenshire Central. Which is predominantly the old Gordon seat which was LD recently. So I will vote for my own party with good conscience and hope others do the same. In the new AN&ME seat I expect it still needs an SNP vote to dislodge the Tory.
The wildcard in Scotland is what happens to the SNP. Its all gone a bit quiet with their scandals, but if charges are brought and infighting begins then who knows where we go.
What if - and this is speculation - Scottish voters decide its a plague on both their houses?
On topic I think Chris Bryant is indulging in wishful thinking. As I posted last night, the HoC library is explict that an MP, even one who is expelled from Parliament, can immediately stand again. One MP was expelled 3 times (for different offences) and stood and won again on each occasion.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
Yes. He can run in these byelections if he wants. The issue is that surely he cannot do so as a Conservative.
The Big Question is what the BBBites do now. Its apparently now a fight to save Brexit - the only reason they have removed him is in a plot to overturn the referendum is you listen to people like Campbell-Bannerman.
We have already seen people like Ann Widdicombe defect rightwards. Could a Tory schism be on the cards? Boris to lead an exodus to ReFUK?
Unless we get PR there is no chance of Boris going to RefUK
Bearing in mind that Boris is technically still an MP, is it possible that the government not appoint him to Chiltern or Northstead and keep him in the Commons long enough for the sanction process to be completed?
Possible, I believe… but what would it achieve?
I think the question is whether the House will vote on the Privileges Committee report. Reporting last night suggested that will happen, Johnson’s resignation notwithstanding. So we’ll find out the Commons’ view anyway.
Forcing the constituency to go through a recall petition would just be a pointless waste of time and money.
Not the whole thing, just long enough for the Commons to find him guilty of misleading Parliament. I just have a feeling that Boris will soon be using the "The Commons never found me guilty of anything" line.
Much remains unclear… but House can still choose to vote on the Committees report and, thus, still find Johnson guilty. Of course, Johnson will just lie and say otherwise given he’s gone full Trump.
The "honours list" farce is the final disgrace of a disgraceful politician. Having now read the full list I actually feel quite nauseous. It is a dishonourable and despicable list of creeps and toadies. It will become proverbial as the last shameful and contemptuous act by the second worst PM in British History (the worst is still Liz Truss). It is simply outrageous.
As for the Conservatives: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"
Much as people will dislike the man and the list, the convention is that departing PM has such a list. Like the military, you salute the rank, not the man. And for a classic bit of what aboutory - I give you Tom Watson, a man who hounded an innocent man to his death and others, with no evidence beyond the ravings of a convicted paedophile, and chose his targets because they were Tories.
Talking of conventions, what happened to the convention that retired PMs were entitled to an earldom?
The heirs get elected as hereditary peers, cf. the House of Lords by-election next week when 2 heirs of PM earldoms contest the Lib Dem section. All current members of the House of Lords are eligible to vote.
But no new hereditary peerages are now created since most hereditary peers were removed from the Lords in 1999, the remaining hereditaries just hold their positions for life
- Murdoch papers still expected to back the Tories (and could be on the losing side for the first time ever). - The Economist is set to endorse Labour for the first time since 2005. - FT viewed as a key swing voter. - https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1667469276066852864
Comments
My personal view is that Britain was right in both cases. Right to repel Argentina's invasion, and right to aid Ukraine in defending itself against the Russian invasion. Thatcher and Boris got it right. But I'm really not convinced Thatcher would have been as pro-intervention as Boris was.
And he’s done it very well.
Or was your comment simply baseless abuse ?
Always helpful to know these things before considering a tactical vote.
Post boundary change I am in Aberdeenshire Central. Which is predominantly the old Gordon seat which was LD recently. So I will vote for my own party with good conscience and hope others do the same. In the new AN&ME seat I expect it still needs an SNP vote to dislodge the Tory.
The wildcard in Scotland is what happens to the SNP. Its all gone a bit quiet with their scandals, but if charges are brought and infighting begins then who knows where we go.
What if - and this is speculation - Scottish voters decide its a plague on both their houses? As with any party there will be a core who would vote for them even if they were openly shooting people in the street. But if voting SNP to dislodge the Tory doesn't wash because people want to punish the SNP as well? Westminster election seen as less important and thus more punishable than a Holyrood election?
All kinds of mad things could happen. Including Labour taking AN&ME despite having no activists.
Where have I heard that before?
That torpedoed their campaign plans when he pretty quickly did a deal. One he now calls crap, but still a deal. It made portraying him as totally reckless much harder in the GE. They couldn't react to him when he wasn't acting as a caricature.
It's not a 50 50 thing, but people did screw up in response to him.
When 80% of the public think you’re a pathological liar there’s no come back . The public will not forget or forgive Johnson for partying while people were dying .
No amount of time will heal Johnson’s image .
I suspect media coverage on the coming by-elections will be skewed towards Uxbridge, too, but let's see if there are any star candidates before we decide that.
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
Were Johnson to be re-elected, the Committee of Standards could recommend anew a suspension based on Partygate lies and the House could vote on that. That is possible. I think it is unlikely because a new election, when the electorate would have been informed of everything that has happened, would confer a new mandate on Johnson. Parliament is, however, sovereign and can do whatever it wants ultimately.
Why do I immediately envisage Boris Johnson as Benny Hill's Fred Scuttle?
Leicester East has the highest Hindu population in the UK and the Tories made gains there in May and had the best Conservative result in the local elections anywhere in England in Leicester
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/constituency-data-religion/#compare_constituencies
I shudder to think of the casualties their infantry will suffer in taking those trenches and dragons teeth. Even if they do succeed it's not going to be pretty and there will be a heavy price to pay in blood.
This is all so tragic.
In the scale of things the Johnson soap opera is actually an insult to what is going on in Ukriane
We are talking about Standards in public life.. he shows how low the bar has become in political life
The first step is to hope opposition elect a totally unsuitable leader and double down by portraying him as the messiah.
Not really of course, but apparently everyone else chose this weekend for big news so anything is possible.
Bryant did say that the Committee could revise its report and accuse Johnson of contempt of Parliament as well, and that this would affect how people see Johnson going forwards.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1667259420030521354?t=44YCnTNS3YjzOFlmLVV6rw&s=19
I think the question is whether the House will vote on the Privileges Committee report. Reporting last night suggested that will happen, Johnson’s resignation notwithstanding. So we’ll find out the Commons’ view anyway.
Forcing the constituency to go through a recall petition would just be a pointless waste of time and money.
If I have misunderstood Chris Bryant's remarks I apologise
And for a classic bit of what aboutory - I give you Tom Watson, a man who hounded an innocent man to his death and others, with no evidence beyond the ravings of a convicted paedophile, and chose his targets because they were Tories.
I would like to see Johnson simply disappear but that isn't going to happen and I can easily see him making a comeback some time in the future as the supposed 'saviour' of the Tory party.
The report dropping into the public domain should ensure the end of Johnson's political career
Hunt Bars Mad Nads' Mid Beds Quit Bid
If he told me it was raining, I would go outside and check.
Remember he sees himself as Churchill so I do think he is playing the long game here. He will disassociate himself from the forthcoming Tory GE defeat and then watch Starmer struggle to make any real impact on the problems the country is facing. Then a nice safe seat for the King over the Water to slip into.
Boris brought down over the party stupidity.
Trump still going strong despite endless criminality and attempting to overthrown democracy.
He’s a married man and well respected MP.
I don’t vote Labour, but he’s a great asset to the Commons.
That probably puts any potential Georgia case, if it comes, not become next summer
I'm sure returning from the wilderness is the story he will tell himself. I'm sure he will collect some deluded followers that way. But it is a delusion, and one that will harm the Conservatives until it finally dies.
Parliament and the public had better blooming well see that report, though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65815254
Fascinating isn't it how globalisation seems to require higher pay for the well connected and lower pay for everyone else.
And given that Boris was born in the USA
Post boundary change I am in Aberdeenshire Central. Which is predominantly the old Gordon seat which was LD recently. So I will vote for my own party with good conscience and hope others do the same. In the new AN&ME seat I expect it still needs an SNP vote to dislodge the Tory.
The wildcard in Scotland is what happens to the SNP. Its all gone a bit quiet with their scandals, but if charges are brought and infighting begins then who knows where we go.
What if - and this is speculation - Scottish voters decide its a plague on both their houses? Yes. He can run in these byelections if he wants. The issue is that surely he cannot do so as a Conservative.
The Big Question is what the BBBites do now. Its apparently now a fight to save Brexit - the only reason they have removed him is in a plot to overturn the referendum is you listen to people like Campbell-Bannerman.
We have already seen people like Ann Widdicombe defect rightwards. Could a Tory schism be on the cards? Boris to lead an exodus to ReFUK?
Many years from now
Will you still impregnate other people's wives?
Spreading Covid ruining lives?
If your barbecue got out of hand
Sick upon the floor
Will we still need you, will we still feed you
When you're sixty-four
That he didn't imitate his brother after his defeat in 2015 is to his credit.
He's also a better local MP since his near defeat in 2019.
according to @YouGov snap poll
46% of 2019 Conservative voters say Johnson was right to quit while only 33% say he was wrong
Furthermore, Johnson and Trump are both fundamentally in the same place. Out of office and likely scheming to get back into office. Difference being that Johnson is not facing serious criminal indictments.
- Murdoch papers still expected to back the Tories (and could be on the losing side for the first time ever).
- The Economist is set to endorse Labour for the first time since 2005.
- FT viewed as a key swing voter.
-
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1667469276066852864
FT will surely back Labour