@hzeffman 14s BREAKING: Privileges committee would have suspended Boris Johnson for NINETY days "for repeated contempts" if he were still an MP.
They now say that he should have his access to parliament as a former MP revoked
My suggestion that he would serve 9 days was only out by a zero then. Wow!
I was expecting 40 days - but it was obvious the ban was going to so long that reducing it below 10 was impossible.
Now I have to ask the very obvious question WTF was Bozo allowed his resignation list - and that's before I even think about the people he nominated given the stories that are still to come from Teesworks.
Direct question for @HYUFD - does right and wrong matter to you? Your response to the suggestion that Mogg receiving censure for contempt of parliament was "any Tory MP voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party"
Is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no? Is it right that an MP committing contempt of parliament be sanctioned by parliament - yes or no?
Simple questions. This isn't about party politics or partisan hackery or votes or opinion polls. This is about standards of behaviour in a parliament that the British people voted to make sovereign.
So is parliament sovereign or not? Because you appear to be suggesting that its rules and standards should offer fealty to your party members.
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament, most MPs voting for that will be doing so for political reasons and for many because they dislike his attitude to Brexit and his defence of Boris.
Mogg is probably one of the most personally moral MPs in Parliament.
Technically you are also wrong, it is not Parliament alone that is sovereign under our unwritten constitution but Crown in Parliament that is sovereign
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament... He did if Parliament says he did.
Direct question for @HYUFD - does right and wrong matter to you? Your response to the suggestion that Mogg receiving censure for contempt of parliament was "any Tory MP voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party"
Is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no? Is it right that an MP committing contempt of parliament be sanctioned by parliament - yes or no?
Simple questions. This isn't about party politics or partisan hackery or votes or opinion polls. This is about standards of behaviour in a parliament that the British people voted to make sovereign.
So is parliament sovereign or not? Because you appear to be suggesting that its rules and standards should offer fealty to your party members.
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament, most MPs voting for that will be doing so for political reasons and for many because they dislike his attitude to Brexit.
Mogg is probably one of the most personally moral MPs in Parliament
You may consider that Mogg did not commit contempt of parliament. However, in this matter your opinion is irrelevant, The standards committee notes thus (para 222):
"This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected House itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions. We consider that these statements are completely unacceptable. In our view this conduct, together with the egregious breach of confidentiality, is a serious further contempt"
The report does not name Mogg. It names the actions carried out by Boris! as a serious contempt of parliament. This is fact. You either respect the actions of parliament or you do not.
So again, is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no?
If Jacob Rees-Mogg is held in contempt of parliament and expelled, for lying about Johnson lying to parliament, the NHS might just collapse as a pandemic of heart attacks sweeps the nation.
From all the laughter…
If Rees Mogg is expelled (or forced to resign and face a by election) on top of Boris going any Tory MP on the Tory majority cttee voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party
I'm your head maybe. In my experience party associations tend to loyalty to their own MP.
"The contempt was all the more serious because it was committed by the Prime Minister, the most senior member of the government. There is no precedent for a Prime Minister having been found to have deliberately misled the House. He misled the House on an issue of the greatest importance to the House and to the public, and did so repeatedly. He declined our invitation to reconsider his assertions that what he said to the House was truthful. His defence to the allegation that he misled was an ex post facto justification and no more than an artifice. He misled the Committee in the presentation of his evidence".
I did not know him then but at School he was apparently lazy and always trying to wriggle out of responsibilities, while chancing his arm either through laziness or perceived personal gain, although bright and charming with it.
It appears he has conducted his whole life in this way from those days to Darius Guppy and into parliament.
He has now been found out. Very many of us on here called him out many years ago. And we were right. So bragging rights are ours but at what cost to the country and parliament.
Got to say, I do feel a level of personal relief this morning now that Johnson has been exposed and so publicly and irretrievably shamed. The millions of us who always knew what he was and whose concerns were dismissed with "You Lost, Get Over It" have been totally vindicated.
I did not know him then but at School he was apparently lazy and always trying to wriggle out of responsibilities, while chancing his arm either through laziness or perceived personal gain, although bright and charming with it.
It appears he has conducted his whole life in this way from those days to Darius Guppy and into parliament.
He has now been found out. Very many of us on here called him out many years ago. And we were right. So bragging rights are ours but at what cost to the country and parliament.
Everybody knew - but too many, from MPs to Tory members to voters - wanted the short-term political gain so much that they deliberately misled themselves.
Direct question for @HYUFD - does right and wrong matter to you? Your response to the suggestion that Mogg receiving censure for contempt of parliament was "any Tory MP voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party"
Is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no? Is it right that an MP committing contempt of parliament be sanctioned by parliament - yes or no?
Simple questions. This isn't about party politics or partisan hackery or votes or opinion polls. This is about standards of behaviour in a parliament that the British people voted to make sovereign.
So is parliament sovereign or not? Because you appear to be suggesting that its rules and standards should offer fealty to your party members.
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament, most MPs voting for that will be doing so for political reasons and for many because they dislike his attitude to Brexit and his defence of Boris.
Mogg is probably one of the most personally moral MPs in Parliament.
Technically you are also wrong, it is not Parliament alone that is sovereign under our unwritten constitution but Crown in Parliament that is sovereign
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament... He did if Parliament says he did.
And they did. Paras 222-224. Johnson and "some politicians" carrying out something described thus: " This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected House itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions. We consider that these statements are completely unacceptable. In our view this conduct, together with the egregious breach of confidentiality, is a serious further contempt"
"These statements" in bold. Being the description of the committee as "“kangaroo courts” and “witch hunts”". Described by the committee as "serious contempt" and "significant contempt".
Mogg. Jenkyns. Clarke. All have repeated these claims. They are evidentially in contempt of parliament as set out in the report.
Good luck to Sunak and co with with their "Starmer wanted Corbyn to be PM" attack line from here on in.
Starmer stuck with Corbyn until the end and the 2019 general election defeat, only standing for the leadership after Corbyn resigned (even if he has suspended Corbyn from Labour now).
Sunak's resignation and attacks on PM Boris last summer were key in forcing Boris to resign
Sunak knew exactly who Johnson was. So did every single Tory who put him in office. So good luck pretending otherwise.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
@hzeffman 14s BREAKING: Privileges committee would have suspended Boris Johnson for NINETY days "for repeated contempts" if he were still an MP.
They now say that he should have his access to parliament as a former MP revoked
My suggestion that he would serve 9 days was only out by a zero then. Wow!
I was expecting 40 days - but it was obvious the ban was going to so long that reducing it below 10 was impossible.
Now I have to ask the very obvious question WTF was Bozo allowed his resignation list - and that's before I even think about the people he nominated given the stories that are still to come from Teesworks.
The only reason I can think of is that it provided more rope for Boris to hang himself with. Not only has been been shown to have misled the house etc but he also is a shitbag who rewards shitbags. Worth taking the hit for Rishi as it removes Boris from the chessboard.
What would be the final stake in the heart for him and end his “Prince over the water” bullshit would be if the (clearly untrue and scurrilous) suggestions, made by awful people on the internet pushed by the blob, about one of his particular young appointees was true and Rishi and co had inside info on it with plausible deniability and then this (clearly untrue and unfairly alleged) info went nuclear in the media. By allowing it through with the ability to say HoLAC and the PM were mislead by Johnson would be the end.
Direct question for @HYUFD - does right and wrong matter to you? Your response to the suggestion that Mogg receiving censure for contempt of parliament was "any Tory MP voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party"
Is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no? Is it right that an MP committing contempt of parliament be sanctioned by parliament - yes or no?
Simple questions. This isn't about party politics or partisan hackery or votes or opinion polls. This is about standards of behaviour in a parliament that the British people voted to make sovereign.
So is parliament sovereign or not? Because you appear to be suggesting that its rules and standards should offer fealty to your party members.
I mean, if everything from the Coalition onwards tells us anything it's that the modern conservative party puts the needs of the party before anything.
While that is the case, it’s true also of most politicians.
Been reading the weekend's Mail at my parents' house. It's all about the noble giant brought down by inadequate pygmies, in revenge for Brexit and for begin brave enough to fight for the downtrodden north against the blob
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
It was not Johnson or nothing back in 2019. The Tories could have gone with Hunt. They knew exactly who it was they were choosing and how he would behave. They didn't care. They put their own interests before the country's. They will be forever damned by that choice.
Those four Tory MPs on the privileges committee have done a huge service to our democracy. I may disagree with them on just about everything, but I salute them for that.
@hzeffman 14s BREAKING: Privileges committee would have suspended Boris Johnson for NINETY days "for repeated contempts" if he were still an MP.
They now say that he should have his access to parliament as a former MP revoked
My suggestion that he would serve 9 days was only out by a zero then. Wow!
I was expecting 40 days - but it was obvious the ban was going to so long that reducing it below 10 was impossible.
Now I have to ask the very obvious question WTF was Bozo allowed his resignation list - and that's before I even think about the people he nominated given the stories that are still to come from Teesworks.
The only reason I can think of is that it provided more rope for Boris to hang himself with. Not only has been been shown to have misled the house etc but he also is a shitbag who rewards shitbags. Worth taking the hit for Rishi as it removes Boris from the chessboard.
What would be the final stake in the heart for him and end his “Prince over the water” bullshit would be if the (clearly untrue and scurrilous) suggestions, made by awful people on the internet pushed by the blob, about one of his particular young appointees was true and Rishi and co had inside info on it with plausible deniability and then this (clearly untrue and unfairly alleged) info went nuclear in the media. By allowing it through with the ability to say HoLAC and the PM were mislead by Johnson would be the end.
It is inconceivable to me that at least one of the appointments hasn't been made for totally inappropriate reasons.
If Jacob Rees-Mogg is held in contempt of parliament and expelled, for lying about Johnson lying to parliament, the NHS might just collapse as a pandemic of heart attacks sweeps the nation.
From all the laughter…
If Rees Mogg is expelled (or forced to resign and face a by election) on top of Boris going any Tory MP on the Tory majority cttee voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party
I'm your head maybe. In my experience party associations tend to loyalty to their own MP.
Even Churchill once faced a deselection attempt by his local Tory Party. And Boris and Mogg are still very popular at grassroots Tory level. If the membership had had the final say on a Boris VONC then Boris would still be PM now and would have won it convincingly. It was only most Tory MPs turning against him that forced him out.
Got to say, I do feel a level of personal relief this morning now that Johnson has been exposed and so publicly and irretrievably shamed. The millions of us who always knew what he was and whose concerns were dismissed with "You Lost, Get Over It" have been totally vindicated.
Looking ahead a key question remains. In the USA as it now is such findings, and worse, make no difference to DTs capacity to be both popular with millions and to continue his fascistic career.
If the UK follows the USA in this sort of way, then Boris will continue to have a major impact, with serious possibilities through the unarguable means of the ballot box.
Hoping that this finishes Boris for good, but there is still much for him to play for.
I did not know him then but at School he was apparently lazy and always trying to wriggle out of responsibilities, while chancing his arm either through laziness or perceived personal gain, although bright and charming with it.
It appears he has conducted his whole life in this way from those days to Darius Guppy and into parliament.
He has now been found out. Very many of us on here called him out many years ago. And we were right. So bragging rights are ours but at what cost to the country and parliament.
Though to be gracious, most of us fell for him to start with, at least a bit. I voted for him in 2008 and 2012. I don't think I was totally wrong to do so.
When he wanted to, Boris could be charming, amusing and helpful. It wasn't quite an act, but it was calculated and rationed.
A shame. Because being governed by Image of Boris, rather than Actual Boris, might have been quite agreeable.
"Conservative MPs Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg and Dame Andrea Jenkyns, both close allies of Johnson, have branded the committee’s inquiry a “kangaroo court”."
There really needs to be a rethink here. Boris Johnson has flounced away from parliament having disgraced himself. Contempt for parliament - on repeated occasions - and criminality is not the behaviour of a former PM who deserves to be respected.
Yet two of his lickspittles are here grifting for him with their "honours".
The Boris! honours list needs to be suspended. That we have "Dame" Andrea Mince defaming parliament is in itself a contempt of parliament.
There was a third Boris knight on the Today program doing the same this morning.
Sunak tried to deflect questions away yesterday: "yebbut Tom Watson".
It isn't about whether such people have been approved by the appointments committee. It is whether they should have been proposed at all. Watson is divisive but as a former deputy LOTO he should have been proposed - up to the committee whether to accept him or not. Bercow is similarly divisive, ex speaker so again should have been proposed. Was rejected (rightly).
The problem with Johnson's list is that these people should not have been proposed. Rees-Mogg lied to the Queen. Ermine for the party DJ the night before the Queen sat alone at the funeral, and for his notdaughter. Why? On what grounds are these people fit to be proposed for anything? Rees-Mogg then doubles down by committing a contempt of parliament by means of thanks.
The entire list is uniquely suspect. I know Labour are attacking the forthcoming Truss list and Truss was a disaster. But other bad PMs have made a list - and so far at least Truss hasn't egregiously held parliament in contempt and tried to appoint family members to the Other Place.
True. She was bonkers and rubbish, but not vindictive or corrupt. I mean, ideally you wouldn't want this to be your options for PM in the first place, but here we are.
She was pretty vindictive- look at the lack of Sunakites in her cabinet. Even Mordaunt got a bit of a non-job, for all the sword holding opportunities.
Not as vindictive as BoJo, but that's a low bar to cross.
Perhaps she just didn't want a cabinet full of duplicitous careerists?
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Makes me happy that I've laid Lab for S&A rather than backing Con, just in case there is a LD special, but I can't see it myself. There's a core Labour vote here that I don't think will be keen to lend votes to those metropolitan liberal elites in the LDs, even to stick it to the Tories - and remember that Lab are very clear second here in the last few GEs. A big LD campaign more likely to split the anti-Tory vote imho. But we'll see.
"There has to be serious questions about Johnson’s honours list and Sunak’s govt allowing them to go through. Johnson has been judged to have lied to the Commons. The first PM in 70 years to do so. And he gets to put people in the same legislature for life as he does so?"
Sunak talks about convention, but nothing like this has happened before in living memory. There is no precedent around how to deal with the honours list of a PM found to have deliberately lied to Parliament. Sunak is creating it. He needs to think again about this.
If Jacob Rees-Mogg is held in contempt of parliament and expelled, for lying about Johnson lying to parliament, the NHS might just collapse as a pandemic of heart attacks sweeps the nation.
From all the laughter…
If Rees Mogg is expelled (or forced to resign and face a by election) on top of Boris going any Tory MP on the Tory majority cttee voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party
I'm your head maybe. In my experience party associations tend to loyalty to their own MP.
Even Churchill once faced a deselection attempt by his local Tory Party. And Boris and Mogg are still very popular at grassroots Tory level. If the membership had had the final say on a Boris VONC then Boris would still be PM now and would have won it convincingly. It was only most Tory MPs turning against him that forced him out.
Forget how popular they are. Does right and wrong matter? To you personally?
I did not know him then but at School he was apparently lazy and always trying to wriggle out of responsibilities, while chancing his arm either through laziness or perceived personal gain, although bright and charming with it.
It appears he has conducted his whole life in this way from those days to Darius Guppy and into parliament.
He has now been found out. Very many of us on here called him out many years ago. And we were right. So bragging rights are ours but at what cost to the country and parliament.
Though to be gracious, most of us fell for him to start with, at least a bit. I voted for him in 2008 and 2012. I don't think I was totally wrong to do so.
When he wanted to, Boris could be charming, amusing and helpful. It wasn't quite an act, but it was calculated and rationed.
A shame. Because being governed by Image of Boris, rather than Actual Boris, might have been quite agreeable.
Absolutely. I worked on his campaigns for London Mayor with Lynton Crosby and don't regret it at all first because the opponent was Ken Livingstone (campaigning around St John's Wood was literally like pushing at an open door!); and secondly because what harm could he do as London Mayor.
And yes also, I'd go for a drink with him before the other 649 MPs but governing the country? Nah huh.
Thank goodness we're not in the US, otherwise this would be 'witchhunt!' and he'd be nailed on to return as Tory leader.
If the US has a parliamentary system and only Republican Congressional Representatives and Senators elected the Republican candidate for the head of government position then most likely DeSantis or Pence would be Republican nominee next year.
It is Republican primary voters support for Trump still which makes him favourite to be Republican nominee again next year as they have the final say on the Republican presidential candidate
"There has to be serious questions about Johnson’s honours list and Sunak’s govt allowing them to go through. Johnson has been judged to have lied to the Commons. The first PM in 70 years to do so. And he gets to put people in the same legislature for life as he does so?"
Not only that, but are we being asked to believe that Sunak didn't know Johnson was misleading Parliament? He stuck with Johnson very nearly to the bitter end.
If Jacob Rees-Mogg is held in contempt of parliament and expelled, for lying about Johnson lying to parliament, the NHS might just collapse as a pandemic of heart attacks sweeps the nation.
From all the laughter…
If Rees Mogg is expelled (or forced to resign and face a by election) on top of Boris going any Tory MP on the Tory majority cttee voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party
I'm your head maybe. In my experience party associations tend to loyalty to their own MP.
Even Churchill once faced a deselection attempt by his local Tory Party. And Boris and Mogg are still very popular at grassroots Tory level. If the membership had had the final say on a Boris VONC then Boris would still be PM now and would have won it convincingly. It was only most Tory MPs turning against him that forced him out.
Churchill faced his local Tory Party giving into pressure from the government (S Baldwin, proprietor) to deselect him.
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
I find your long and furious condemnations of anyone criticising the work of this parliamentary committee to be really quite bizarre. Should MPs not be allowed to criticise their peers? What sort of society are you going for here?
Direct question for @HYUFD - does right and wrong matter to you? Your response to the suggestion that Mogg receiving censure for contempt of parliament was "any Tory MP voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party"
Is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no? Is it right that an MP committing contempt of parliament be sanctioned by parliament - yes or no?
Simple questions. This isn't about party politics or partisan hackery or votes or opinion polls. This is about standards of behaviour in a parliament that the British people voted to make sovereign.
So is parliament sovereign or not? Because you appear to be suggesting that its rules and standards should offer fealty to your party members.
Rees Mogg didn't commit contempt of Parliament, most MPs voting for that will be doing so for political reasons and for many because they dislike his attitude to Brexit and his defence of Boris.
Mogg is probably one of the most personally moral MPs in Parliament.
It was not Johnson or nothing back in 2019. The Tories could have gone with Hunt. They knew exactly who it was they were choosing and how he would behave. They didn't care. They put their own interests before the country's. They will be forever damned by that choice.
Had the Tories gone with Hunt Corbyn may be PM now not Sunak or at least it would still be a hung parliament with Brexit still not getting done and Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer.
The Tories would not have won the Redwall seats Boris won with Hunt, the Brexit Party would have stood more candidates in Tory held seats and Tory losses in Scotland would have meant even with the DUP Hunt would not have a majority.
Off topic, but this really does show the absurdity of this policing of women's physiology. For cycling women athletes already have to be AFAB, but also have a testosterone limit that excludes 13% of existing women athletes... why? For what purpose? Are these athletes not "real" women? Absurdity in the name of "fairness", pushed by transphobia...
An utter disgrace that after such a report he should be allowed to nominate people for honours, especially people involved in the events which led to his censure and those who have attacked the very concept of a Standards Committee and being accountable to it.
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
I find your long and furious condemnations of anyone criticising the work of this parliamentary committee to be really quite bizarre. Should MPs not be allowed to criticise their peers? What sort of society are you going for here?
There are ways and ways. If they sincerely have concerns about the committee or its membership, bring it to the house - the Tories have a majority, if your peers agree there are real issues then they will be convinced by your arguments. Saying that people made faces when Johnson was lying to them is not acceptable sounds pretty absurd to me - especially coming from the likes of Fabricant defending the likes of Johnson.
Off topic, but this really does show the absurdity of this policing of women's physiology. For cycling women athletes already have to be AFAB, but also have a testosterone limit that excludes 13% of existing women athletes... why? For what purpose? Are these athletes not "real" women? Absurdity in the name of "fairness", pushed by transphobia...
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, ...
Is there any reason to think they hadn't just caught a glimpse of Fabricant's hairdo?
"He was a very bad man," said one contemporary chronicler. "Whenever he could he told lies rather than the truth." "No man may trust him," said another, "for his heart is soft and cowardly."
Got to say, I do feel a level of personal relief this morning now that Johnson has been exposed and so publicly and irretrievably shamed. The millions of us who always knew what he was and whose concerns were dismissed with "You Lost, Get Over It" have been totally vindicated.
That phrase was only really used in the context of the referendum, and it would be eccentric to oppose the reslt based on the character of a particular individual.
If Jacob Rees-Mogg is held in contempt of parliament and expelled, for lying about Johnson lying to parliament, the NHS might just collapse as a pandemic of heart attacks sweeps the nation.
From all the laughter…
If Rees Mogg is expelled (or forced to resign and face a by election) on top of Boris going any Tory MP on the Tory majority cttee voting for such expulsion who wants to stand again at the next general election would likely face an immediate deselection meeting from their local party
I'm your head maybe. In my experience party associations tend to loyalty to their own MP.
Even Churchill once faced a deselection attempt by his local Tory Party. And Boris and Mogg are still very popular at grassroots Tory level. If the membership had had the final say on a Boris VONC then Boris would still be PM now and would have won it convincingly. It was only most Tory MPs turning against him that forced him out.
Churchill faced his local Tory Party giving into pressure from the government (S Baldwin, proprietor) to deselect him.
And an idiotic comparison in the first place, from HY, trying to compare a policy disagreement on what turned out to be the biggest issue of the day, with the recent PM's dishonest and disreputable behaviour.
Interesting part of the report - there will now be a second report that will discuss the attempts to undermine this one. May name names of MPs this committee think committed contempt. It could potentially not be unanimous?
Max Hastings says it is a devastating result, intended to bury Boris Johnson, and entirely a result of his own conduct over many years.
It's astonishing to think that much of this wouldn't have happened if he'd owned up in the first place. Of course that'd probably have led to him having to stand down as PM, but he'd have finished up in a better place than he is now. Hard to see any way back.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
Labour supporters in denial and fear about the Hindu vote surge for Rishi doesn't mean it does not exist. See Leicester in May in the local elections where the Tories gained 17 seats from Labour completely against the national trend with Leicester having the highest Hindu population in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Leicester_City_Council_election
ULEZ is a huge issue in outer London and Uxbridge has the 3rd highest car ownership level in London.
The LD by election machine is also ruthless, see Chesham, North Shropshire and Tiverton and they are targeting Mid Beds hard and the LD by election machine gets huge swings well above national poll swings.
The Labour by election machine is hopeless in comparison to the LDs, if Labour win by elections it is normally only on national swing which I agree means Selby likely stays Conservative even if Labour cut the Tory majority
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
I find your long and furious condemnations of anyone criticising the work of this parliamentary committee to be really quite bizarre. Should MPs not be allowed to criticise their peers? What sort of society are you going for here?
I have no problem with MPs criticising the committee, the report or its findings. What should be happening now is that the Commons should debate the report and vote on whether to implement its findings. That is due process.
What I condemn is people being given a bauble by Boris! and then immediately piping up in the media to defend him and condemn the committee.
They are not doing so from an unbiased position. Even Nick Robinson questioned Fabricant about the knighthood awarded to him by Boris! and his whole-hearted attack on the committee.
Thank goodness we're not in the US, otherwise this would be 'witchhunt!' and he'd be nailed on to return as Tory leader.
If the US has a parliamentary system and only Republican Congressional Representatives and Senators elected the Republican candidate for the head of government position then most likely DeSantis or Pence would be Republican nominee next year.
It is Republican primary voters support for Trump still which makes him favourite to be Republican nominee again next year as they have the final say on the Republican presidential candidate
Hang on, we have a parliamentary system but who chose Liz Truss to be PM?
If the US had the UK's system Trump would be President right now because the GOP would be in power and the GOP members would have chosen Trump for their leader.
It was not Johnson or nothing back in 2019. The Tories could have gone with Hunt. They knew exactly who it was they were choosing and how he would behave. They didn't care. They put their own interests before the country's. They will be forever damned by that choice.
Had the Tories gone with Hunt Corbyn may be PM now not Sunak or at least it would still be a hung parliament with Brexit still not getting done and Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer.
The Tories would not have won the Redwall seats Boris won with Hunt, the Brexit Party would have stood more candidates in Tory held seats and Tory losses in Scotland would have meant even with the DUP Hunt would not have a majority.
Yes, as I say, they put their own interests first. And look where we have ended up. Even May beat Corbyn - and Corbyn was even more unpopular in 2019 than he was in 2017.
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
I find your long and furious condemnations of anyone criticising the work of this parliamentary committee to be really quite bizarre. Should MPs not be allowed to criticise their peers? What sort of society are you going for here?
There are ways and ways. If they sincerely have concerns about the committee or its membership, bring it to the house - the Tories have a majority, if your peers agree there are real issues then they will be convinced by your arguments. Saying that people made faces when Johnson was lying to them is not acceptable sounds pretty absurd to me - especially coming from the likes of Fabricant defending the likes of Johnson.
The people who are issuing the loudest condemnation of the committee and the report are the people who have just been awarded "honours" by the man who according to the committee has disgraced himself and his office.
That @Luckyguy1983 sees no problem with this isn't a surprise.
Off topic, but this really does show the absurdity of this policing of women's physiology. For cycling women athletes already have to be AFAB, but also have a testosterone limit that excludes 13% of existing women athletes... why? For what purpose? Are these athletes not "real" women? Absurdity in the name of "fairness", pushed by transphobia...
Max Hastings says it is a devastating result, intended to bury Boris Johnson, and entirely a result of his own conduct over many years.
I have to agree that it seems political. Boris deserves this for what he has done over the years but I have to say that I am uncomfortable with the assertions based on the evidence, there is no written evidence, and surely someone like Sue Gray who has now shown her allegiance would be able to point to where the bodies were buried.
The fact is that there is an exceptionally high level of stupidity on Boris' part, and if he had been more gracious and charming about how he could now see the impression things gave and if he did it all again he would have taken a different route he would probably have gotten away with it. Instead he has found himself in a Kafkaesque situation where there is no real evidence of his misdeeds apart from the common sense he is so obviously lacking, but him pointing this out and criticising the committee in person and proxy has led to a very serious outcome, richly deserved for his behaviour over the years if not in my opinion on the merits of the case itself .
It was not Johnson or nothing back in 2019. The Tories could have gone with Hunt. They knew exactly who it was they were choosing and how he would behave. They didn't care. They put their own interests before the country's. They will be forever damned by that choice.
Had the Tories gone with Hunt Corbyn may be PM now not Sunak or at least it would still be a hung parliament with Brexit still not getting done and Corbyn still Labour leader not Starmer.
The Tories would not have won the Redwall seats Boris won with Hunt, the Brexit Party would have stood more candidates in Tory held seats and Tory losses in Scotland would have meant even with the DUP Hunt would not have a majority.
Yes, as I say, they put their own interests first. And look where we have ended up. Even May beat Corbyn - and Corbyn was even more unpopular in 2019 than he was in 2017.
No I think there is merit to what @HYUFD says. With Hunt in charge (I of course voted for him) many of the fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists might have effed off to another, more extreme party. And might have delivered Corbyn into No.10.
The relentless and hugely effective "Get Brexit Done" was pure Boris (a lie of course, but it did what it was supposed to do) and I'm not sure Hunt would have been as effective in marshalling everyone into a single focused approach.
Max Hastings says it is a devastating result, intended to bury Boris Johnson, and entirely a result of his own conduct over many years.
It's astonishing to think that much of this wouldn't have happened if he'd owned up in the first place. Of course that'd probably have led to him having to stand down as PM, but he'd have finished up in a better place than he is now. Hard to see any way back.
Never the crime, always the coverup.
Thank you Boris for giving us a morality tale we can use in a thousand school assemblies.
A quick shout out to Keir Starmer, who persevered on the topic at PMQs when Tories attacked him for raising trivialities. We all owe him a vote of thanks. Another successful prosecution.
Looks like the Mid Beds by election is off for the foreseeable future.
'Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage...Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65910896
So does this mean the LDs will now switch to Selby from Mid Beds with Labour still focusing on Uxbridge?
Probably. Which no doubt means the chances of the Tories winning a by-election soon are reduced.
What's the betting Mad Nad resigns just after the other two by-elections?
Mid Beds was probably the Tories likeliest loss, the LD by election machine already up and running there.
Uxbridge with its big Hindu vote and with the Tory anti ULEZ campaign could be a shock Tory hold, Selby was Labour at one stage under Blair (albeit on different boundaries) so I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run there as in Mid Beds thus splitting the non Conservative vote. Thus the Conservatives could win Selby on just 35-40%
The 'Hindu vote', which, as recent discussions here have shown, is far from a coherent voting bloc and as far as there is a likelihood to favour a party, it favours Labour, doesn't feel to me like the factor you think it is. ULEZ would be their wedge, but honestly I think U&SR would be a more likely loss than Mid Beds which has been Tory since Socrates was in short pants.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
I see that the Lib Dems have started to get to work in Selby, with apparently encouraging results so far. And if, as young HY suggests, the Tory vote there is down to 35%, then anything could happen. Fingers crossed, eh?
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
I find your long and furious condemnations of anyone criticising the work of this parliamentary committee to be really quite bizarre. Should MPs not be allowed to criticise their peers? What sort of society are you going for here?
Hopefully one that's seen the back of a complete sleazeball like Johnson?
Max Hastings says it is a devastating result, intended to bury Boris Johnson, and entirely a result of his own conduct over many years.
It's astonishing to think that much of this wouldn't have happened if he'd owned up in the first place. Of course that'd probably have led to him having to stand down as PM, but he'd have finished up in a better place than he is now. Hard to see any way back.
Never the crime, always the coverup.
Thank you Boris for giving us a morality tale we can use in a thousand school assemblies.
"If you lie and grift... you too can be PM and have a lucrative after dinner speaking career"?
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
I find your long and furious condemnations of anyone criticising the work of this parliamentary committee to be really quite bizarre. Should MPs not be allowed to criticise their peers? What sort of society are you going for here?
There are ways and ways. If they sincerely have concerns about the committee or its membership, bring it to the house - the Tories have a majority, if your peers agree there are real issues then they will be convinced by your arguments. Saying that people made faces when Johnson was lying to them is not acceptable sounds pretty absurd to me - especially coming from the likes of Fabricant defending the likes of Johnson.
The people who are issuing the loudest condemnation of the committee and the report are the people who have just been awarded "honours" by the man who according to the committee has disgraced himself and his office.
That @Luckyguy1983 sees no problem with this isn't a surprise.
What's that supposed to mean? You are just showing your own prejudices that those with whom you agree are models of probity and good character, while those with whom you disagree are scoundrels and wastrels.
As an aside, Marc Morris' biography of King John is a bit weird to read as it leaves one with the certain knowledge that the reader would be a far better ruler but it's also very depressing England had such an awful reader.
The antithesis of an Alexander the Great biography, in that regard.
Max Hastings says it is a devastating result, intended to bury Boris Johnson, and entirely a result of his own conduct over many years.
It's astonishing to think that much of this wouldn't have happened if he'd owned up in the first place. Of course that'd probably have led to him having to stand down as PM, but he'd have finished up in a better place than he is now. Hard to see any way back.
Never the crime, always the coverup.
Thank you Boris for giving us a morality tale we can use in a thousand school assemblies.
"If you lie and grift... you too can be PM and have a lucrative after dinner speaking career"?
A quick shout out to Keir Starmer, who persevered on the topic at PMQs when Tories attacked him for raising trivialities. We all owe him a vote of thanks. Another successful prosecution.
That's the end of Boris then?
If only Parliament had put the same effort into nailing Blair for his illegal war...
"Sir" Michael Fabricant grifting away besmirching the committee on the Today programme:
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
I find your long and furious condemnations of anyone criticising the work of this parliamentary committee to be really quite bizarre. Should MPs not be allowed to criticise their peers? What sort of society are you going for here?
There are ways and ways. If they sincerely have concerns about the committee or its membership, bring it to the house - the Tories have a majority, if your peers agree there are real issues then they will be convinced by your arguments. Saying that people made faces when Johnson was lying to them is not acceptable sounds pretty absurd to me - especially coming from the likes of Fabricant defending the likes of Johnson.
The people who are issuing the loudest condemnation of the committee and the report are the people who have just been awarded "honours" by the man who according to the committee has disgraced himself and his office.
That @Luckyguy1983 sees no problem with this isn't a surprise.
What's that supposed to mean? You are just showing your own prejudices that those with whom you agree are models of probity and good character, while those with whom you disagree are scoundrels and wastrels.
"On the subject of bias, Fabricant was then asked by the presenter, Nick Robinson, if he thought there was a link between his willingness to repeatedly defend Johnson and the fact that Johnson ensured he got a knighthood in the resignation honours published last week."
It is not an outrageous question to ask about the adjacency of various people being awarded baubles and their leaping to the defence of the person who awarded them.
Off topic, but this really does show the absurdity of this policing of women's physiology. For cycling women athletes already have to be AFAB, but also have a testosterone limit that excludes 13% of existing women athletes... why? For what purpose? Are these athletes not "real" women? Absurdity in the name of "fairness", pushed by transphobia...
The reason most sports have a women's category is that in most sports women cannot compete against men at the elite level. So you either have a women's category, or you don't have women competing.
That being the case, you need to have qualification criteria for the category that will exclude men who have an advantage due to their biology. Due to the complexities of biology, however you define these criteria you will find cases of people who are close to the line and have justified reasons for feeling aggrieved about being on the wrong side of it. That's simply inevitable.
So then it's a matter of details and arguing about where the line should be drawn, about who should be excluded. Your post would suggest that the criteria in cycling have been drawn too tightly, or that they are looking at something which isn't useful in terms of deciding who should be eligible to compete. It would seem they have work to do, but it doesn't seem to be raging transphobia.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr.’s opinion for the 7-2 majority in Gamble v. United States included a lengthy discussion of what centuries-old English common law says, or doesn’t say, about the rights of 21st century criminal defendants.
In particular, Alito said Terrance Gamble could not rely on a 17th century murder case known as Hutchinson for the proposition that federal and state prosecutors cannot try a defendant over the same underlying conduct...
...“There is something about the tone in which Alito writes that makes you want to show him to be wrong,” said Alldridge, of the Queen Mary University of London...
...Since Gamble, the Supreme Court has cited the common law of medieval England in numerous decisions affecting the lives of everyday Americans.
Alito’s landmark opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization invoked a legal treatise from as early as the 12th century on the penalties for aborting a “quick” child. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, rejected the argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that a long tradition of English law supported modern restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.
Mumford said she leaned on the expertise of English legal history scholars in her research on the Hutchinson decision and suggested that perhaps members of the U.S. Supreme Court, if they are invested in getting the common law right, could do the same.
“I’ve just been surprised that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t done that,” she said. “I think it might be a good thing to do if there is this commitment to originalism.”
Boris Johnson has been done in by his own flaws; flaws which have been visible in his actions for many years.
If it were not for those flaws, he might have been a reasonably 'good' PM. But if it were not the those flaws, and his careful manipulation of them, he would never have come anywhere near the top job.
Comments
Now I have to ask the very obvious question WTF was Bozo allowed his resignation list - and that's before I even think about the people he nominated given the stories that are still to come from Teesworks.
This is fucking hilarious!
"This attack on a committee carrying out its remit from the democratically elected House itself amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions. We consider that these statements are completely unacceptable. In our view this conduct, together with the egregious breach of confidentiality, is a serious further contempt"
The report does not name Mogg. It names the actions carried out by Boris! as a serious contempt of parliament. This is fact. You either respect the actions of parliament or you do not.
So again, is it acceptable for an MP to commit contempt of parliament - yes or no?
Need to pop out and get more popcorn !
It appears he has conducted his whole life in this way from those days to Darius Guppy and into parliament.
He has now been found out. Very many of us on here called him out many years ago. And we were right. So bragging rights are ours but at what cost to the country and parliament.
"These statements" in bold. Being the description of the committee as "“kangaroo courts” and “witch hunts”". Described by the committee as "serious contempt" and "significant contempt".
Mogg. Jenkyns. Clarke. All have repeated these claims. They are evidentially in contempt of parliament as set out in the report.
Selby will likely stay Tory IMVHO.
What would be the final stake in the heart for him and end his “Prince over the water” bullshit would be if the (clearly untrue and scurrilous) suggestions, made by awful people on the internet pushed by the blob, about one of his particular young appointees was true and Rishi and co had inside info on it with plausible deniability and then this (clearly untrue and unfairly alleged) info went nuclear in the media. By allowing it through with the ability to say HoLAC and the PM were mislead by Johnson would be the end.
https://twitter.com/dailyloud/status/1669187862317629440?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
That’s two Liz Truss terms, the political equivalent of measurement by double decker bus.
It's like a parallel universe
"I trust parliament but of course I’m not so sure that I trust the privileges committee.
Why do I say that? I actually sat in while Boris Johnson gave evidence. Now, you’ve got to understand that the committee sits in a quasi-judicial role. It’s there to dispassionately make a judgment.
I looked at the members of the committee. Some of them behaved in a totally proper way. Others were pulling faces, were looking heavenwards, were indicating they didn’t agree with what Boris was saying. You know, I was quite shocked actually by the behaviour of some of the members of the privileges committee."
Outrageously given a gong by Boris! and then outrageously attacking the committee for doing its job.
If the UK follows the USA in this sort of way, then Boris will continue to have a major impact, with serious possibilities through the unarguable means of the ballot box.
Hoping that this finishes Boris for good, but there is still much for him to play for.
When he wanted to, Boris could be charming, amusing and helpful. It wasn't quite an act, but it was calculated and rationed.
A shame. Because being governed by Image of Boris, rather than Actual Boris, might have been quite agreeable.
Instead he leaves parliament in total disgrace . Sorry Bozo no statue for you !
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1669259205084102656
"There has to be serious questions about Johnson’s honours list and Sunak’s govt allowing them to go through. Johnson has been judged to have lied to the Commons. The first PM in 70 years to do so. And he gets to put people in the same legislature for life as he does so?"
And yes also, I'd go for a drink with him before the other 649 MPs but governing the country? Nah huh.
It is Republican primary voters support for Trump still which makes him favourite to be Republican nominee again next year as they have the final say on the Republican presidential candidate
The Tories would not have won the Redwall seats Boris won with Hunt, the Brexit Party would have stood more candidates in Tory held seats and Tory losses in Scotland would have meant even with the DUP Hunt would not have a majority.
https://twitter.com/Chican3ry/status/1669216644139294720?s=20
And not just of Johnson. Of his lawyers too, paid for by us. Their opinion has been criticised for the same reasons as were pointed out by many lawyers at the time, including yours truly here - https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/09/02/muddying-the-waters-on-bojos-130k-legal-bill/.
An utter disgrace that after such a report he should be allowed to nominate people for honours, especially people involved in the events which led to his censure and those who have attacked the very concept of a Standards Committee and being accountable to it.
Hastings condemns those in the Tory Party - and the Telegraph and Mail - who supported and still support him despite knowing what he is.
Says he won't vote Conservative next time but wants Sunak to succeed, as a decent human being when Boris Johnson is not.
Describes Johnson's period in office as "a crony-ridden shambles"
"No man may trust him," said another, "for his heart is soft and cowardly."
What a coincidence.
There are a fair,few on the news reports today happily sticking the boot in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Leicester_City_Council_election
ULEZ is a huge issue in outer London and Uxbridge has the 3rd highest car ownership level in London.
The LD by election machine is also ruthless, see Chesham, North Shropshire and Tiverton and they are targeting Mid Beds hard and the LD by election machine gets huge swings well above national poll swings.
The Labour by election machine is hopeless in comparison to the LDs, if Labour win by elections it is normally only on national swing which I agree means Selby likely stays Conservative even if Labour cut the Tory majority
What I condemn is people being given a bauble by Boris! and then immediately piping up in the media to defend him and condemn the committee.
They are not doing so from an unbiased position. Even Nick Robinson questioned Fabricant about the knighthood awarded to him by Boris! and his whole-hearted attack on the committee.
If the US had the UK's system Trump would be President right now because the GOP would be in power and the GOP members would have chosen Trump for their leader.
That @Luckyguy1983 sees no problem with this isn't a surprise.
And can you defend these regs?
The fact is that there is an exceptionally high level of stupidity on Boris' part, and if he had been more gracious and charming about how he could now see the impression things gave and if he did it all again he would have taken a different route he would probably have gotten away with it. Instead he has found himself in a Kafkaesque situation where there is no real evidence of his misdeeds apart from the common sense he is so obviously lacking, but him pointing this out and criticising the committee in person and proxy has led to a very serious outcome, richly deserved for his behaviour over the years if not in my opinion on the merits of the case itself .
The relentless and hugely effective "Get Brexit Done" was pure Boris (a lie of course, but it did what it was supposed to do) and I'm not sure Hunt would have been as effective in marshalling everyone into a single focused approach.
Thank you Boris for giving us a morality tale we can use in a thousand school assemblies.
The antithesis of an Alexander the Great biography, in that regard.
Am loving today.
If only Parliament had put the same effort into nailing Blair for his illegal war...
It is not an outrageous question to ask about the adjacency of various people being awarded baubles and their leaping to the defence of the person who awarded them.
That being the case, you need to have qualification criteria for the category that will exclude men who have an advantage due to their biology. Due to the complexities of biology, however you define these criteria you will find cases of people who are close to the line and have justified reasons for feeling aggrieved about being on the wrong side of it. That's simply inevitable.
So then it's a matter of details and arguing about where the line should be drawn, about who should be excluded. Your post would suggest that the criteria in cycling have been drawn too tightly, or that they are looking at something which isn't useful in terms of deciding who should be eligible to compete. It would seem they have work to do, but it doesn't seem to be raging transphobia.
UK Legal Scholars Track Down 17th Century Murder Case, Prove Supreme Court Wrong
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2023/06/14/uk-legal-scholars-track-down-17th-century-murder-case-prove-supreme-court-wrong/
When the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an Alabama man’s double jeopardy defense in 2019, it did so largely based on the “feeble” and “shaky” historical evidence he had offered in support of his argument.
Justice Samuel Alito Jr.’s opinion for the 7-2 majority in Gamble v. United States included a lengthy discussion of what centuries-old English common law says, or doesn’t say, about the rights of 21st century criminal defendants.
In particular, Alito said Terrance Gamble could not rely on a 17th century murder case known as Hutchinson for the proposition that federal and state prosecutors cannot try a defendant over the same underlying conduct...
...“There is something about the tone in which Alito writes that makes you want to show him to be wrong,” said Alldridge, of the Queen Mary University of London...
...Since Gamble, the Supreme Court has cited the common law of medieval England in numerous decisions affecting the lives of everyday Americans.
Alito’s landmark opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization invoked a legal treatise from as early as the 12th century on the penalties for aborting a “quick” child. Justice Clarence Thomas, meanwhile, rejected the argument in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen that a long tradition of English law supported modern restrictions on the public carrying of firearms.
Mumford said she leaned on the expertise of English legal history scholars in her research on the Hutchinson decision and suggested that perhaps members of the U.S. Supreme Court, if they are invested in getting the common law right, could do the same.
“I’ve just been surprised that the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t done that,” she said. “I think it might be a good thing to do if there is this commitment to originalism.”
If it were not for those flaws, he might have been a reasonably 'good' PM. But if it were not the those flaws, and his careful manipulation of them, he would never have come anywhere near the top job.