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"?
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.
Alexander the Great was competent at chasing his immediate goals. On the other hand, he left a trail of death and destruction across a large chunk of the planet. And setup years of war to follow him.
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"?
Max Hastings putting the boot in on BBCNews. ‘An undischarged moral bankrupt’
Max Hastings published an article some years ago that Boris was an enormous shit, liar, asswipe and generally a total [redacted]. It was pointed out to him that he still gave him a job. I bow to nobody in my dislike of Johnson but you don't get to the top without a lot of support and a lot of people deliberately overlooked his problems.
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
But today's kids need someone to aspire to. Not some irrelevant dinosaur who became PM last century!
The wonder is that anyone drank it, to begin with.
It is genuinely horrible beer. Modelo isn't amazing, but it's many times better than Bud Light.
A distant relative who lives in Minnesota says that it lets you drink and drive. If you pace yourself at 2/hour you can stay out all night then drive home.
Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter (1) V. Important story- what should be on the newspaper front pages: The Department for Health's own inquiry says they sacrificed Care Homes over Covid because they didn't understand the privatised care sector, and even thought it wasn't their responsibility
"Johnson has issued a 1700-word rebuttal of the report, the contents of which we simply cannot be arsed to read" would be a good sentence to read in the news, memo all editors
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
Johnson is simply new labours legacy.
If there's one thing we should all now by now, it's that (in PB Toryland at least) everything is the fault of New Labour
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?
The LDs have never been second in Selby (even from 1997 to 2010) whereas the LDs were second in all their recent by election gains ie Tiverton, Shropshire North and Chesham as recently as 2010 and the LDs were also second in Mid Beds in 2010.
Selby also had a Labour MP under Blair (even if the boundaries were slightly different). I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run in Selby like in Mid Beds as on current polls it should be a Tory marginal with Labour second. All the LDs targeting Selby as well then may do is let the Tories hold it on less than 40% of the vote due to a split opposition
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
Johnson is simply new labours legacy.
If there's one thing we should all now by now, it's that (in PB Toryland at least) everything is the fault of New Labour
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.
May only beat Corbyn in 2017 because of Tory gains in Scotland, reversed in 2019. So as I said in 2019 Hunt would likely even have lost the majority May had with the DUP
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
I don't have much appetite to rehash the debate about religious affiliation and voting, so if it's OK let's just agree to disagree on that. I'm not a Labour voter* or supporter so can't speak to fear/denial, though it sounds a bit far-fetched.
I agree on ULEZ being a good wedge issue in outer London, and also on the LD by-election machine, which speaking broadly is down to the experience, energy and dedication and sheer number of activists. I have huge respect for the LDs as a party given their relative lack of funding. Labour members (like Tories) can tend a bit to both complacency and/or fringe views; the LDs can afford neither.
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?
The LDs have never been second in Selby (even from 1997 to 2010) whereas the LDs were second in all their recent by election gains ie Tiverton, Shropshire North and Chesham as recently as 2010 and the LDs were also second in Mid Beds in 2010.
Selby also had a Labour MP under Blair (even if the boundaries were slightly different). I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run in Selby like in Mid Beds as on current polls it should be a Tory marginal with Labour second. All the LDs targeting Selby as well then may do is let the Tories hold it on less than 40% of the vote due to a split opposition
I agree. There's a lot of social conservatism around here, which both supports the Tory vote holding up and makes it hard to see much success for the LDs (as in evidence in recent elections). A different story in the north of the constituency, but that's a relatively small part - Selby is the big town and is, mostly, fairly solid Labour, with a few swing areas in e.g. the town council or the old district council elections.
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
Johnson is simply new labours legacy.
If there's one thing we should all now by now, it's that (in PB Toryland at least) everything is the fault of New Labour
If there’s one thing we should know in PB land everyone’s a Tory even if they aren’t if they don’t toe a particular line.
I voted labour in GE’s.
Johnson is to blame for his one circumstances. However the debasement of politics is not new.
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.
More Tory MPs voted for Rishi last year than Truss. Hence Truss only lasted 5 minutes as PM even despite winning the Tory membership vote before Tory MPs replaced her as PM with Rishi.
If the US had the UK's system it may well be it would end up DeSantis and Pence put to Republican voters to be their Presidential candidate, Trump would be eliminated by Republican US Representatives and Senators even if he would win the Republican primary voters vote. Even if the Speaker of the House was PM that would be Kevin McCarthy not Trump who is not even a US Representative.
Most Labour MPs of course voted against Corbyn and for Burnham and Cooper in 2015 and Smith in 2016, it was Labour members and supporters who made Corbyn Labour leader
Max Hastings putting the boot in on BBCNews. ‘An undischarged moral bankrupt’
Max Hastings published an article some years ago that Boris was an enormous shit, liar, asswipe and generally a total [redacted]. It was pointed out to him that he still gave him a job. I bow to nobody in my dislike of Johnson but you don't get to the top without a lot of support and a lot of people deliberately overlooked his problems.
The article was, I think, something of a mea culpa in that respect ?
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
Johnson is simply new labours legacy.
If there's one thing we should all now by now, it's that (in PB Toryland at least) everything is the fault of New Labour
Which in turn was all Mrs T's fault....
Well, I blame Disraeli. Although I know some finger Pitt the Younger
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
The wonder is that anyone drank it, to begin with.
It is genuinely horrible beer. Modelo isn't amazing, but it's many times better than Bud Light.
A distant relative who lives in Minnesota says that it lets you drink and drive. If you pace yourself at 2/hour you can stay out all night then drive home.
I don't endorse drinking anything alcoholic really before driving, and tbh having to drink Bud Light in moderation sounds like a Dante-esque punishment for overindulgent zythophiles.
"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.
If people aren't willing to give Johnson the benefit of the doubt (if there is any, I haven't studied the evidence), why is this? Is it revenge for Brexit, as some claim? (no). It is because he has a long history of lying through his teeth? Well it's not the first time he's lost a job because of his dishonesty.
OTOH if he was still PM and ahead in the opinion polls, he wouldn't be being sanctioned for lying to the house. That's maybe what hurts the most, he's just too unpopular nowadays to still get away with it.
Max Hastings putting the boot in on BBCNews. ‘An undischarged moral bankrupt’
Max Hastings published an article some years ago that Boris was an enormous shit, liar, asswipe and generally a total [redacted]. It was pointed out to him that he still gave him a job. I bow to nobody in my dislike of Johnson but you don't get to the top without a lot of support and a lot of people deliberately overlooked his problems.
Johnson was the jocular face of the right wing establishment blob that they thought they could use to sell their agenda to the proles. They all knew he was an amoral, lying shit (because these people all know each other) but they still crowned him PM because it was in their interests at the time. Shame on every single one of them.
Max Hastings says it is a devastating result, intended to bury Boris Johnson, and entirely a result of his own conduct over many years.
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"
Max Hastings was one of those who gave Johnson a job despite seeing with his own eyes his misbehaviour. His criticisms of Johnson are interesting and accurate. But what would be a damn sight more interesting from him would be some reflection on his own behaviour because it was precisely people overlooking Johnson's misbehaviour, as he did, that allowed him to rise so far.
Solomon Hughes @SolHughesWriter (1) V. Important story- what should be on the newspaper front pages: The Department for Health's own inquiry says they sacrificed Care Homes over Covid because they didn't understand the privatised care sector, and even thought it wasn't their responsibility
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
Hey, we've all been wrong before.
Kindest to say that her posts displayed a degree of certainty which was not entirely warranted in the circumstances. I'm quite a fast reader, and I find her posts an entertaining challenge to make sense of.
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
I don't have much appetite to rehash the debate about religious affiliation and voting, so if it's OK let's just agree to disagree on that. I'm not a Labour voter* or supporter so can't speak to fear/denial, though it sounds a bit far-fetched.
I agree on ULEZ being a good wedge issue in outer London, and also on the LD by-election machine, which speaking broadly is down to the experience, energy and dedication and sheer number of activists. I have huge respect for the LDs as a party given their relative lack of funding. Labour members (like Tories) can tend a bit to both complacency and/or fringe views; the LDs can afford neither.
Forgot my footnote*
*I have voted Labour once - as a Stop Boris vote in the 2008 London Mayoral election.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
The wonder is that anyone drank it, to begin with.
It is genuinely horrible beer. Modelo isn't amazing, but it's many times better than Bud Light.
A distant relative who lives in Minnesota says that it lets you drink and drive. If you pace yourself at 2/hour you can stay out all night then drive home.
The police there seem to favour sobriety tests over breathalysers so it might well be true.
The government funded Boris Johnson’s legal advice for the privileges investigation to the tune of £245,000 (Henry Zeffman writes).
Yet the report suggests that this may have hindered rather than helped the former prime minister. His lead lawyer was Lord Pannick KC. But the report accuses him, in three opinions, of having made arguments “based on fallacious analogies between the inquisitorial parliamentary process and the quite separate adversarial process which is followed in the courts.”
The committee dedicates an annex of its report to “clearing up misunderstandings about the house’s inquisitorial procedures, rebutting arguments that the committee has strayed beyond its order of reference [and] explaining that our report is not based on the Sue Gray report, or on the evidence taken by Sue Gray” — all arguments advanced by Johnson’s lawyers.
"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.
Part of the power of the powerful is their image of inevitability- project the sense that you are going to win and you can do so without trying.
The trouble with bluffing is that, once you are called out on it, everyone will pile on.
Has the privileges committee created a martyr? Will Boris Johnson be mentioned in the same breath as Dr Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Joan of Arc, St Peter...
Joking aside, he will be presented as such by the usual suspects.
Max Hastings putting the boot in on BBCNews. ‘An undischarged moral bankrupt’
Max Hastings published an article some years ago that Boris was an enormous shit, liar, asswipe and generally a total [redacted]. It was pointed out to him that he still gave him a job. I bow to nobody in my dislike of Johnson but you don't get to the top without a lot of support and a lot of people deliberately overlooked his problems.
But its none of those flaws which have brought Boris down.
What's done for him has been his total lack of self-discipline even when given an explicit example (Cummings and Durham) about the political risks of breaking covid regulations.
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.
Alexander the Great was competent at chasing his immediate goals. On the other hand, he left a trail of death and destruction across a large chunk of the planet. And setup years of war to follow him.
King John was a minor fuckup by comparison.
He Hellenized the world though which some think a good thing. There's an alt history where someone from the East comes west in his absence and we all turn in to Zoroastrians.
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
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
Still bored and disappointed with it all rather than enjoyment for me. Well done the Tories on the committee for not taking us further down silly partisanship and alternative realities at least.
Has the privileges committee created a martyr? Will Boris Johnson be mentioned in the same breath as Dr Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Joan of Arc, St Peter...
Joking aside, he will be presented as such by the usual suspects.
What they have created of course, is one of those thorns in the side for the current Tory leader, which will be fun to watch.
Though perhaps serving up the cold dish of revenge might not be Boris' strong point as it involves patience, single minded focus and actually being bothered to do it.
Tories now face an important crossroads. Support old school conservatism, due process, quiet sober governance and institutions. Or go all in with the conspiracy theorists, populists and gb news outrage machine.
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.
More Tory MPs voted for Rishi last year than Truss. Hence Truss only lasted 5 minutes as PM even despite winning the Tory membership vote before Tory MPs replaced her as PM with Rishi.
If the US had the UK's system it may well be it would end up DeSantis and Pence put to Republican voters to be their Presidential candidate, Trump would be eliminated by Republican US Representatives and Senators even if he would win the Republican primary voters vote. Even if the Speaker of the House was PM that would be Kevin McCarthy not Trump who is not even a US Representative.
Most Labour MPs of course voted against Corbyn and for Burnham and Cooper in 2015 and Smith in 2016, it was Labour members and supporters who made Corbyn Labour leader
Good god, the Owen Smith thing feels like a weird fever dream now. I didn't realise till I just looked him up that he is currently working as a lobbyist for a big Pharma firm.
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
Johnson is simply new labours legacy.
If there's one thing we should all now by now, it's that (in PB Toryland at least) everything is the fault of New Labour
Which in turn was all Mrs T's fault....
Well, I blame Disraeli. Although I know some finger Pitt the Younger
There wasn't an age limit for that sort of thing, back then.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
You are once again so far off the deep end its not funny.
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
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.
More Tory MPs voted for Rishi last year than Truss. Hence Truss only lasted 5 minutes as PM even despite winning the Tory membership vote before Tory MPs replaced her as PM with Rishi.
If the US had the UK's system it may well be it would end up DeSantis and Pence put to Republican voters to be their Presidential candidate, Trump would be eliminated by Republican US Representatives and Senators even if he would win the Republican primary voters vote. Even if the Speaker of the House was PM that would be Kevin McCarthy not Trump who is not even a US Representative.
Most Labour MPs of course voted against Corbyn and for Burnham and Cooper in 2015 and Smith in 2016, it was Labour members and supporters who made Corbyn Labour leader
Good god, the Owen Smith thing feels like a weird fever dream now. I didn't realise till I just looked him up that he is currently working as a lobbyist for a big Pharma firm.
I did a pitch to him (which we lost) on pharma policy advice a couple of years ago. Was a somewhat surreal experience.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
You are once again so far off the deep end its not funny.
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
They can. However the party association can also vote to deselect their MP as a party candidate even if the leadership still supports them.
So Tory MPs who voted to expel or suspend Boris and/or Mogg could still be deselected as Tory parliamentary candidates by their local Tory associations
Max Hastings putting the boot in on BBCNews. ‘An undischarged moral bankrupt’
Max Hastings published an article some years ago that Boris was an enormous shit, liar, asswipe and generally a total [redacted]. It was pointed out to him that he still gave him a job. I bow to nobody in my dislike of Johnson but you don't get to the top without a lot of support and a lot of people deliberately overlooked his problems.
But its none of those flaws which have brought Boris down.
What's done for him has been his total lack of self-discipline even when given an explicit example (Cummings and Durham) about the political risks of breaking covid regulations.
Cummings and Durham surely proved to Boris he can brazen it out. Likewise questions about who paid for his exotic holidays and even free meals.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
I have no concern about associations selecting their candidates - they likely have more freedom to so than their Labour counterparts...
But this isn't about that. It is about the freedom of elected MPs to uphold the rules of the house. You stated very clearly that any Tory who did so would face deselection.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
You are once again so far off the deep end its not funny.
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
They can. However the party association can also vote to deselect their MP as a party candidate even if the leadership still supports them.
So Tory MPs who voted to expel or suspend Boris and/or Mogg could still be deselected as Tory parliamentary candidates by their local Tory associations
Johnson’s unedifying lashing out is going to spell the end of his political career.
He is going down the Trump route. These institutions have it in for me, burn it all down.
The problem for Boris is that whilst he does have his own mini cult, it is absolutely nothing compared to the strength and reach of MAGA. Most people think he’s a twat. The fact that his failings relate to breaches of lockdown measures (which he and his government eagerly imposed on the rest of us) is especially damaging politically.
This I hope marks the end of the political career of a man who was given tremendous gifts of communication but who was also deeply flawed and unsuited for high office (yes, I voted Tory in 2019. Yes I regret it every day).
The wonder is that anyone drank it, to begin with.
It is genuinely horrible beer. Modelo isn't amazing, but it's many times better than Bud Light.
A distant relative who lives in Minnesota says that it lets you drink and drive. If you pace yourself at 2/hour you can stay out all night then drive home.
I don't endorse drinking anything alcoholic really before driving, and tbh having to drink Bud Light in moderation sounds like a Dante-esque punishment for overindulgent zythophiles.
There are a considerable number of quality zero alcohol beers available now.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
I have no concern about associations selecting their candidates - they likely have more freedom to so than their Labour counterparts...
But this isn't about that. It is about the freedom of elected MPs to uphold the rules of the house. You stated very clearly that any Tory who did so would face deselection.
I don't think the Johnson fluffers who sought to justify Brexit after the event by wanging on about sovereignty and the supremacy of Parliament are bright enough to understand how stupid they sound this morning.
The wonder is that anyone drank it, to begin with.
It is genuinely horrible beer. Modelo isn't amazing, but it's many times better than Bud Light.
A distant relative who lives in Minnesota says that it lets you drink and drive. If you pace yourself at 2/hour you can stay out all night then drive home.
I don't endorse drinking anything alcoholic really before driving, and tbh having to drink Bud Light in moderation sounds like a Dante-esque punishment for overindulgent zythophiles.
There are a considerable number of quality zero alcohol beers available now.
Bud Light is still shit.
I've never understood why anyone drinks Bud, or almost any American beer.
The one 'light' beer I like is Coors Light. Completely different to Bud, it is very pleasant and refreshing.
If I'm driving I'll still only have it as a shandy with my meal in a restaurant and only the one - I'll never drink and drive, but I feel a light shandy is something I can tolerate and know I'm well, well within my limits. I've never understood people who try to game things to push themselves right to the limit and stay just inside it, make an error and you're over the limit and if you are drinking you're more likely to make an error or not realise you have had too much since by definition if you've had too much, your judgement is impaired.
Johnson’s unedifying lashing out is going to spell the end of his political career.
He is going down the Trump route. These institutions have it in for me, burn it all down.
The problem for Boris is that whilst he does have his own mini cult, it is absolutely nothing compared to the strength and reach of MAGA. Most people think he’s a twat. The fact that his failings relate to breaches of lockdown measures (which he and his government eagerly imposed on the rest of us) is especially damaging politically.
This I hope marks the end of the political career of a man who was given tremendous gifts of communication but who was also deeply flawed and unsuited for high office (yes, I voted Tory in 2019. Yes I regret it every day).
I wouldn't worry about the 2019 GE vote. We were offered two different shit sandwiches. The blame lies with the Tory MPs who were willing to go with Boris to win at the inevitable cost of later self destruction, not the GE voters with a choice between Boris or Corbyn. Just don't vote for them next time, or until they sort themselves out.
The wonder is that anyone drank it, to begin with.
It is genuinely horrible beer. Modelo isn't amazing, but it's many times better than Bud Light.
A distant relative who lives in Minnesota says that it lets you drink and drive. If you pace yourself at 2/hour you can stay out all night then drive home.
I don't endorse drinking anything alcoholic really before driving, and tbh having to drink Bud Light in moderation sounds like a Dante-esque punishment for overindulgent zythophiles.
There are a considerable number of quality zero alcohol beers available now.
Bud Light is still shit.
I've never understood why anyone drinks Bud, or almost any American beer.
The one 'light' beer I like is Coors Light. Completely different to Bud, it is very pleasant and refreshing.
If I'm driving I'll still only have it as a shandy with my meal in a restaurant and only the one - I'll never drink and drive, but I feel a light shandy is something I can tolerate and know I'm well, well within my limits. I've never understood people who try to game things to push themselves right to the limit and stay just inside it, make an error and you're over the limit and if you are drinking you're more likely to make an error or not realise you have had too much since by definition if you've had too much, your judgement is impaired.
The best brewers in the world are nearly all in America. The gap between their high-end and mass-produced end is vast - though there are also some widely available, well-made and consistently lovely beers in the mid-range too; Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is a good example.
Johnson’s unedifying lashing out is going to spell the end of his political career.
He is going down the Trump route. These institutions have it in for me, burn it all down.
The problem for Boris is that whilst he does have his own mini cult, it is absolutely nothing compared to the strength and reach of MAGA. Most people think he’s a twat. The fact that his failings relate to breaches of lockdown measures (which he and his government eagerly imposed on the rest of us) is especially damaging politically.
This I hope marks the end of the political career of a man who was given tremendous gifts of communication but who was also deeply flawed and unsuited for high office (yes, I voted Tory in 2019. Yes I regret it every day).
You would hope so. But potentially the punishment is so severe that some people decide it really *is* improper which drives the martyr narrative.
If the government was conservative, this wouldn't be an issue. He flounced, they close ranks, they fight for re-election. But the government isn't conservative, and so many Tories are demanding a radical shift away from the current policy non-agenda back towards something they consider to be suitable.
That agenda needs a leader. And poor old Boris! having been abused this badly is clearly held by many as a figurehead. I can't see how he leads the Tory party again - or becomes a Tory MP again. But he doesn't care about the party, so change platform.
Remember that nearly 4 million people voted UKIP in 2015. So there is a significant voter base open to a "proper" right party should one run. And the Brexit Party stopped the Tories winning all kinds of mad seats in 2019.
So whilst the likeliest scenario is Boris! sneaking away, it may not be...
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
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
While I agree with all of that, one should note that they did treat the whole process with contempt. Boris refuses to face the music, resigning instead, then submitted a rebuttal three minutes before the midnight deadline in order to provide a couple of days delay. During which time he set his shit stirring acolytes to work in smearing the committee.
Parliament obviously ought not to issue formal punishment for speech outside of Parliament (within Parliament is obviously a different matter since members assent to bring bound by Parliamentary rules). But the rest of us should return that contempt upon the whole pack of them.
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
You are once again so far off the deep end its not funny.
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
They can. However the party association can also vote to deselect their MP as a party candidate even if the leadership still supports them.
So Tory MPs who voted to expel or suspend Boris and/or Mogg could still be deselected as Tory parliamentary candidates by their local Tory associations
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
Johnson is simply new labours legacy.
If there's one thing we should all now by now, it's that (in PB Toryland at least) everything is the fault of New Labour
If there’s one thing we should know in PB land everyone’s a Tory even if they aren’t if they don’t toe a particular line.
I voted labour in GE’s.
Johnson is to blame for his one circumstances. However the debasement of politics is not new.
I wasn't alleging you to be a Tory! Actually, I wasn't sure whetheryour post was serious or in jest.
ETA: Yes, Blair, Campbell etc. But Johnson is something else
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
You are once again so far off the deep end its not funny.
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
They can. However the party association can also vote to deselect their MP as a party candidate even if the leadership still supports them.
So Tory MPs who voted to expel or suspend Boris and/or Mogg could still be deselected as Tory parliamentary candidates by their local Tory associations
Not one will, however.
Expect a barrage about how you don’t know the Tory party.
I mean you’ve only been campaigning for it since the 70s IIRC?
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
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
While I agree with all of that, one should note that they did treat the whole process with contempt. Boris refuses to face the music, resigning instead, then submitted a rebuttal three minutes before the midnight deadline in order to provide a couple of days delay. During which time he set his shit stirring acolytes to work in smearing the committee.
Parliament obviously ought not to issue formal punishment for speech outside of Parliament (within Parliament is obviously a different matter since members assent to bring bound by Parliamentary rules). But the rest of us should return that contempt upon the whole pack of them.
Yes I can completely agree with all that! 👍
The easy way some people want to engage in censorship because they think the other people are wrong, and some of the reports that have been leaked, is something I find deeply disturbing.
Censorship is never acceptable. It is profoundly undemocratic.
But treating people with the same contempt they've shown others. Yes, that's entirely reasonable and entirely justified. Call Boris a clown, or a liar, call Mogg whatever you think of him. That too is free speech.
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
Johnson is simply new labours legacy.
If there's one thing we should all now by now, it's that (in PB Toryland at least) everything is the fault of New Labour
Which in turn was all Mrs T's fault....
Well, I blame Disraeli. Although I know some finger Pitt the Younger
There wasn't an age limit for that sort of thing, back then.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
I see Moon Rabbit was talking shite once more last night.
The report was approved unanimously by the committee - which has a Conservative majority.
Some utterly deranged posts on here last night, even by her gin-addled standards
@HYUFD is still hiding from basic questions about right and wrong. Apparently Tory associations should hold the whip hand over parliament. I don't remember that caveat when the same associations campaigned for Brexit to make parliament sovereign...
Tory Associations correctly hold the final say over Tory parliamentary candidates.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
You are once again so far off the deep end its not funny.
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
They can. However the party association can also vote to deselect their MP as a party candidate even if the leadership still supports them.
So Tory MPs who voted to expel or suspend Boris and/or Mogg could still be deselected as Tory parliamentary candidates by their local Tory associations
Cuckoo.
A lot of associations are.
Neil Hamilton got a vote of confidence from his, even after the brown envelope scandal broke.
[REDACTED] has been reselected by their association despite being on bail for various sexual offences and having agreed not to go onto the Westminster site.
(For now, the same thing would have been to leave the question open until the unpleasantness was cleared up.)
I'm sure the same is true for other parties as well. Local parties are loyal and don't like to admit they selected a baddie.
Johnson’s unedifying lashing out is going to spell the end of his political career.
He is going down the Trump route. These institutions have it in for me, burn it all down.
The problem for Boris is that whilst he does have his own mini cult, it is absolutely nothing compared to the strength and reach of MAGA. Most people think he’s a twat. The fact that his failings relate to breaches of lockdown measures (which he and his government eagerly imposed on the rest of us) is especially damaging politically.
This I hope marks the end of the political career of a man who was given tremendous gifts of communication but who was also deeply flawed and unsuited for high office (yes, I voted Tory in 2019. Yes I regret it every day).
You would hope so. But potentially the punishment is so severe that some people decide it really *is* improper which drives the martyr narrative.
If the government was conservative, this wouldn't be an issue. He flounced, they close ranks, they fight for re-election. But the government isn't conservative, and so many Tories are demanding a radical shift away from the current policy non-agenda back towards something they consider to be suitable.
That agenda needs a leader. And poor old Boris! having been abused this badly is clearly held by many as a figurehead. I can't see how he leads the Tory party again - or becomes a Tory MP again. But he doesn't care about the party, so change platform.
Remember that nearly 4 million people voted UKIP in 2015. So there is a significant voter base open to a "proper" right party should one run. And the Brexit Party stopped the Tories winning all kinds of mad seats in 2019.
So whilst the likeliest scenario is Boris! sneaking away, it may not be...
The idea of Bozo creating a new Right wing party that gains traction had 1 fundamental flaw.
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
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
While I agree with all of that, one should note that they did treat the whole process with contempt. Boris refuses to face the music, resigning instead, then submitted a rebuttal three minutes before the midnight deadline in order to provide a couple of days delay. During which time he set his shit stirring acolytes to work in smearing the committee.
Parliament obviously ought not to issue formal punishment for speech outside of Parliament (within Parliament is obviously a different matter since members assent to bring bound by Parliamentary rules). But the rest of us should return that contempt upon the whole pack of them.
Yes I can completely agree with all that! 👍
The easy way some people want to engage in censorship because they think the other people are wrong, and some of the reports that have been leaked, is something I find deeply disturbing.
Censorship is never acceptable. It is profoundly undemocratic.
But treating people with the same contempt they've shown others. Yes, that's entirely reasonable and entirely justified. Call Boris a clown, or a liar, call Mogg whatever you think of him. That too is free speech.
If I insult my employer, I get fired, insult the court I risk imprisonment (or more likely striking off). The same does and should apply to Members of Parliament. Say what you want but accept the consequences.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
I feel that you are a broken record here - it's going to require a proper investigation as to whether it was required or not.. Just Bozo was running No 10 as clown school isn't a valid argument for anything beyond Bozo being stupid, a liar and definitely not a scientist.
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
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
While I agree with all of that, one should note that they did treat the whole process with contempt. Boris refuses to face the music, resigning instead, then submitted a rebuttal three minutes before the midnight deadline in order to provide a couple of days delay. During which time he set his shit stirring acolytes to work in smearing the committee.
Parliament obviously ought not to issue formal punishment for speech outside of Parliament (within Parliament is obviously a different matter since members assent to bring bound by Parliamentary rules). But the rest of us should return that contempt upon the whole pack of them.
Yes I can completely agree with all that! 👍
The easy way some people want to engage in censorship because they think the other people are wrong, and some of the reports that have been leaked, is something I find deeply disturbing.
Censorship is never acceptable. It is profoundly undemocratic.
But treating people with the same contempt they've shown others. Yes, that's entirely reasonable and entirely justified. Call Boris a clown, or a liar, call Mogg whatever you think of him. That too is free speech.
If I insult my employer, I get fired, insult the court I risk imprisonment (or more likely striking off). The same does and should apply to Members of Parliament. Say what you want but accept the consequences.
AFAIK insult the court from outside the court and you don't risk imprisonment. Primary legislation has removed slanderising the court as an offence. Which is why the likes of the Mail as part of the free press are allowed to print things like "Enemies of the People" because its not contempt of court - it would have been and would have been prosecuted before the 1930s as such, but its not today, hasn't been in practice for nearly a century and in law for a decade.
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
If that is the lesson they learn then we are truly fucked. And if you think that all the lockdowns were unecessary then you are deluded.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support? Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
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"?
As if Blair hadn't proved that decades ago.
Johnson is simply new labours legacy.
If there's one thing we should all now by now, it's that (in PB Toryland at least) everything is the fault of New Labour
Which in turn was all Mrs T's fault....
Well, I blame Disraeli. Although I know some finger Pitt the Younger
There wasn't an age limit for that sort of thing, back then.
Johnson’s unedifying lashing out is going to spell the end of his political career.
He is going down the Trump route. These institutions have it in for me, burn it all down.
The problem for Boris is that whilst he does have his own mini cult, it is absolutely nothing compared to the strength and reach of MAGA. Most people think he’s a twat. The fact that his failings relate to breaches of lockdown measures (which he and his government eagerly imposed on the rest of us) is especially damaging politically.
This I hope marks the end of the political career of a man who was given tremendous gifts of communication but who was also deeply flawed and unsuited for high office (yes, I voted Tory in 2019. Yes I regret it every day).
You would hope so. But potentially the punishment is so severe that some people decide it really *is* improper which drives the martyr narrative.
If the government was conservative, this wouldn't be an issue. He flounced, they close ranks, they fight for re-election. But the government isn't conservative, and so many Tories are demanding a radical shift away from the current policy non-agenda back towards something they consider to be suitable.
That agenda needs a leader. And poor old Boris! having been abused this badly is clearly held by many as a figurehead. I can't see how he leads the Tory party again - or becomes a Tory MP again. But he doesn't care about the party, so change platform.
Remember that nearly 4 million people voted UKIP in 2015. So there is a significant voter base open to a "proper" right party should one run. And the Brexit Party stopped the Tories winning all kinds of mad seats in 2019.
So whilst the likeliest scenario is Boris! sneaking away, it may not be...
The idea of Bozo creating a new Right wing party that gains traction had 1 fundamental flaw.
It would need Bozo to actually do some work..
He is also not particularly right wing.....just an incompetent and arrogant charlatan.
Johnson’s unedifying lashing out is going to spell the end of his political career.
He is going down the Trump route. These institutions have it in for me, burn it all down.
The problem for Boris is that whilst he does have his own mini cult, it is absolutely nothing compared to the strength and reach of MAGA. Most people think he’s a twat. The fact that his failings relate to breaches of lockdown measures (which he and his government eagerly imposed on the rest of us) is especially damaging politically.
This I hope marks the end of the political career of a man who was given tremendous gifts of communication but who was also deeply flawed and unsuited for high office (yes, I voted Tory in 2019. Yes I regret it every day).
You would hope so. But potentially the punishment is so severe that some people decide it really *is* improper which drives the martyr narrative.
If the government was conservative, this wouldn't be an issue. He flounced, they close ranks, they fight for re-election. But the government isn't conservative, and so many Tories are demanding a radical shift away from the current policy non-agenda back towards something they consider to be suitable.
That agenda needs a leader. And poor old Boris! having been abused this badly is clearly held by many as a figurehead. I can't see how he leads the Tory party again - or becomes a Tory MP again. But he doesn't care about the party, so change platform.
Remember that nearly 4 million people voted UKIP in 2015. So there is a significant voter base open to a "proper" right party should one run. And the Brexit Party stopped the Tories winning all kinds of mad seats in 2019.
So whilst the likeliest scenario is Boris! sneaking away, it may not be...
The idea of Bozo creating a new Right wing party that gains traction had 1 fundamental flaw.
It would need Bozo to actually do some work..
Boris! likes to be popular, going to see people and telling them stories. Actually managing a party is what someone else does. The hard right have splintered and wandered around. UKIP splintered into a remaining rump and a new Brexit Party, which then rebranded as Reform UK. With Reclaim and a rump SDP also out there.
The success of UKIP in 2015 was that it was a singular entity with a visible populist leader. Glue all of the disparate bits of their political diaspora back together, with Boris! out front campaigning to Save Brexit and Level Up Your Community and they could be a seriously disruptive force.
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
Boris problem in all of this is not the parties, the drinking or the cake... it's lockdown! They knew it was all bullshit but kept everyone locked up anyway.
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
If that is the lesson they learn then we are truly fucked. And if you think that all the lockdowns were unecessary then you are deluded.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support? Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
Or you can do what Sweden did, which was far better. Offer support to those who want it or need it, but leave it then to educated people to make responsible choices.
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
What is calling the committee the house enjoined to serve this role, that just released it's unanimous report, a "kangaroo court" if not impugning the house and treating it with contempt? To say it is a "kangaroo court" is not just having a go at the members on the committee, but those who put them there - which is everyone in the house.
The PM is not the executive, they are not above the law, and they are not above the house. We know that Johnson and Mogg at best incorrectly advised the crown on prorogation, at worst lied to the crown, why should it be so outrageous to suggest they would be willing to do the same to the house?
Free speech.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
While I agree with all of that, one should note that they did treat the whole process with contempt. Boris refuses to face the music, resigning instead, then submitted a rebuttal three minutes before the midnight deadline in order to provide a couple of days delay. During which time he set his shit stirring acolytes to work in smearing the committee.
Parliament obviously ought not to issue formal punishment for speech outside of Parliament (within Parliament is obviously a different matter since members assent to bring bound by Parliamentary rules). But the rest of us should return that contempt upon the whole pack of them.
Yes I can completely agree with all that! 👍
The easy way some people want to engage in censorship because they think the other people are wrong, and some of the reports that have been leaked, is something I find deeply disturbing.
Censorship is never acceptable. It is profoundly undemocratic.
But treating people with the same contempt they've shown others. Yes, that's entirely reasonable and entirely justified. Call Boris a clown, or a liar, call Mogg whatever you think of him. That too is free speech.
If I insult my employer, I get fired, insult the court I risk imprisonment (or more likely striking off). The same does and should apply to Members of Parliament. Say what you want but accept the consequences.
AFAIK insult the court from outside the court and you don't risk imprisonment. Primary legislation has removed slanderising the court as an offence. Which is why the likes of the Mail as part of the free press are allowed to print things like "Enemies of the People" because its not contempt of court - it would have been and would have been prosecuted before the 1930s as such, but its not today, hasn't been in practice for nearly a century and in law for a decade.
Theoretically I do risk imprisonment. I'm a solicitor which means I'm an officer of the court and subject to its jurisdiction in the same ways as a solicitor, attorney or proctor of the superior courts was before 1873.
"50 Jurisdiction of [F1Senior Courts] over solicitors.
(1) Any person duly admitted as a solicitor shall be an officer of the [F2Senior Courts] ; F3. . .
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court, the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal respectively, or any division or judge of those courts, may exercise the same jurisdiction in respect of solicitors as any one of the superior courts of law or equity from which the [F4Senior Courts were] constituted might have exercised immediately before the passing of the M1Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 in respect of any solicitor, attorney or proctor admitted to practise there.
[F5(3) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any order made against a solicitor by the High Court or the Crown Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in respect of solicitors under subsection (2).]"
Next time there's a pandemic it will likely be different to a greater or lesser extent. If we had a far higher lethality, lockdowns would certainly be wise.
Meanwhile gas prices have now doubled since the start of June and are up over 8% today. The trend appears upwards too. Now at the same price as August 21.
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
And they are going to put interest rates up in an attempt to cure it. Which doesn't work for external price shocks.
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
I’ve said it before about culture wars too. You’re right.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
The problem Labour has is that to just keep current Government spending actually going they need to increase tax before they think about anything else.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
The problem Labour has is that increasing tax just shrinks the pie and ultimately reduces the tax take, which is why all Labour governments have always ran out of other people's money.
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
If every other oil and gas producing country follows the same logic as (1), then we are fucked.
Comments
King John was a minor fuckup by comparison.
https://order-order.com/2023/06/15/boris-responds-it-is-for-the-people-of-this-country-to-decide-who-sits-in-parliament-not-harriet-harman/
Anyone hoping for a dignified mea culpa please do not read.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1669263353271730177
Number 1 of many today
https://twitter.com/SolHughesWriter/status/1669270563443859459
Solomon Hughes
@SolHughesWriter
(1) V. Important story- what should be on the newspaper front pages: The Department for Health's own inquiry says they sacrificed Care Homes over Covid because they didn't understand the privatised care sector, and even thought it wasn't their responsibility
"Johnson has issued a 1700-word rebuttal of the report, the contents of which we simply cannot be arsed to read" would be a good sentence to read in the news, memo all editors
He would also have been an entirely different person.
Selby also had a Labour MP under Blair (even if the boundaries were slightly different). I can't see Starmer giving the LDs a free run in Selby like in Mid Beds as on current polls it should be a Tory marginal with Labour second. All the LDs targeting Selby as well then may do is let the Tories hold it on less than 40% of the vote due to a split opposition
Hardly going to help tame inflation is this carriers on.
I agree on ULEZ being a good wedge issue in outer London, and also on the LD by-election machine, which speaking broadly is down to the experience, energy and dedication and sheer number of activists. I have huge respect for the LDs as a party given their relative lack of funding. Labour members (like Tories) can tend a bit to both complacency and/or fringe views; the LDs can afford neither.
But, low turnout can mean that anything happens.
I voted labour in GE’s.
Johnson is to blame for his one circumstances. However the debasement of politics is not new.
If the US had the UK's system it may well be it would end up DeSantis and Pence put to Republican voters to be their Presidential candidate, Trump would be eliminated by Republican US Representatives and Senators even if he would win the Republican primary voters vote. Even if the Speaker of the House was PM that would be Kevin McCarthy not Trump who is not even a US Representative.
Most Labour MPs of course voted against Corbyn and for Burnham and Cooper in 2015 and Smith in 2016, it was Labour members and supporters who made Corbyn Labour leader
I've said this before and I'll say it again; while everybody is focussing on culture war issues, we now have two major parties who don't know (now even in theory post-Truss) how to run an economy, don't even understand their ignorance, and are plowing on like [rudewords]. We are in trouble.
OTOH if he was still PM and ahead in the opinion polls, he wouldn't be being sanctioned for lying to the house. That's maybe what hurts the most, he's just too unpopular nowadays to still get away with it.
Lib Dems calling for Boris Johnson to lose the allowance he gets as a former PM
Kindest to say that her posts displayed a degree of certainty which was not entirely warranted in the circumstances.
I'm quite a fast reader, and I find her posts an entertaining challenge to make sense of.
*I have voted Labour once - as a Stop Boris vote in the 2008 London Mayoral election.
The government funded Boris Johnson’s legal advice for the privileges investigation to the tune of £245,000 (Henry Zeffman writes).
Yet the report suggests that this may have hindered rather than helped the former prime minister. His lead lawyer was Lord Pannick KC. But the report accuses him, in three opinions, of having made arguments “based on fallacious analogies between the inquisitorial parliamentary process and the quite separate adversarial process which is followed in the courts.”
The committee dedicates an annex of its report to “clearing up misunderstandings about the house’s inquisitorial procedures, rebutting arguments that the committee has strayed beyond its order of reference [and] explaining that our report is not based on the Sue Gray report, or on the evidence taken by Sue Gray” — all arguments advanced by Johnson’s lawyers.
The trouble with bluffing is that, once you are called out on it, everyone will pile on.
Joking aside, he will be presented as such by the usual suspects.
What's done for him has been his total lack of self-discipline even when given an explicit example (Cummings and Durham) about the political risks of breaking covid regulations.
We discussed this last night. What is calling the Supreme Court "Enemies of the People" if not contempt of court? Actually, it turns out its free speech.
Criticising a court, or its members, outside the court is not contempt of court it is free speech.
It used to be contempt of court, known as "slanderising the court", but that was last enforced in the 1930s. It was more recently attempted to be used against Labour's Peter Hain and following a review that recommended it is free speech under the ECHR the offence of slanderising the court was abolished by primary legislation a decade ago.
So its not contempt of court. Why should it be contempt of Parliament?
Forget Mogg, Mogg is a dickhead. Forget Boris, Boris is rightly out. Always think what if these powers were used by those who should be least trusted to them. What if a Trumpite majority in Parliament sought to oust their own critics by the same means?
Critics should always be free to speak, even if they're wrong, because otherwise when the shoe is on the other foot and they're not wrong you've removed all protections from genuine critics.
At least Reeves seems to get it. But Starmers policy on oil and gas really worries me given global uncertainty and the windfall tax is shambolic.
All,of the Johnson stuff is a distraction from the utter shambles in this country.
Neither party offers anything.
I’ll not vote next time.
If MPs want to vote to suspend or expel MPs from Parliament that is their affair but that doesn't mean those of them who are Tories will be reselected as Tory candidates again
Replying to @BethRigby
If an MP doesn't vote for the report on Johnson, they'll have to explain themselves to their constituents.
Any MP that backs Johnson is writing Labour, Lib Dem, SNP (or, indeed, Yorkshire Party) leaflets for them.
Though perhaps serving up the cold dish of revenge might not be Boris' strong point as it involves patience, single minded focus and actually being bothered to do it.
Which is it to be?
The party leader can quite rightly stop anyone from standing as a Tory candidate, even if the association wants them. If someone is expelled from the party they're no longer a Tory and can be replaced - regardless of what the association may think of the matter.
Ooof. 90 days is heavier than I was expecting, and especially the lifetime exclusion from the Parliamentary Estate (*).
I wonder how much of that was due to the contempt BJ expressed for the process.
Anyhoo:
(*) Who has that been applied to before - John Bercow and some of the convicted-of-crime politicians?
So Tory MPs who voted to expel or suspend Boris and/or Mogg could still be deselected as Tory parliamentary candidates by their local Tory associations
But this isn't about that. It is about the freedom of elected MPs to uphold the rules of the house. You stated very clearly that any Tory who did so would face deselection.
Again - does right and wrong matter?
He is going down the Trump route. These institutions have it in for me, burn it all down.
The problem for Boris is that whilst he does have his own mini cult, it is absolutely nothing compared to the strength and reach of MAGA. Most people think he’s a twat. The fact that his failings relate to breaches of lockdown measures (which he and his government eagerly imposed on the rest of us) is especially damaging politically.
This I hope marks the end of the political career of a man who was given tremendous gifts of communication but who was also deeply flawed and unsuited for high office (yes, I voted Tory in 2019. Yes I regret it every day).
Bud Light is still shit.
I don't think the Johnson fluffers who sought to justify Brexit after the event by wanging on about sovereignty and the supremacy of Parliament are bright enough to understand how stupid they sound this morning.
The one 'light' beer I like is Coors Light. Completely different to Bud, it is very pleasant and refreshing.
If I'm driving I'll still only have it as a shandy with my meal in a restaurant and only the one - I'll never drink and drive, but I feel a light shandy is something I can tolerate and know I'm well, well within my limits. I've never understood people who try to game things to push themselves right to the limit and stay just inside it, make an error and you're over the limit and if you are drinking you're more likely to make an error or not realise you have had too much since by definition if you've had too much, your judgement is impaired.
Amazing spot from @SamCoatesSky
No 10 official says building was 'island oasis of normality' as wine time Fridays continued
'Birthday parties, leaving parties & end of week gatherings all continued'
Staff told to be 'mindful of cameras' outside but it was 'all pantomime'
If the government was conservative, this wouldn't be an issue. He flounced, they close ranks, they fight for re-election. But the government isn't conservative, and so many Tories are demanding a radical shift away from the current policy non-agenda back towards something they consider to be suitable.
That agenda needs a leader. And poor old Boris! having been abused this badly is clearly held by many as a figurehead. I can't see how he leads the Tory party again - or becomes a Tory MP again. But he doesn't care about the party, so change platform.
Remember that nearly 4 million people voted UKIP in 2015. So there is a significant voter base open to a "proper" right party should one run. And the Brexit Party stopped the Tories winning all kinds of mad seats in 2019.
So whilst the likeliest scenario is Boris! sneaking away, it may not be...
Boris refuses to face the music, resigning instead, then submitted a rebuttal three minutes before the midnight deadline in order to provide a couple of days delay. During which time he set his shit stirring acolytes to work in smearing the committee.
Parliament obviously ought not to issue formal punishment for speech outside of Parliament (within Parliament is obviously a different matter since members assent to bring bound by Parliamentary rules).
But the rest of us should return that contempt upon the whole pack of them.
ETA: Yes, Blair, Campbell etc. But Johnson is something else
I mean you’ve only been campaigning for it since the 70s IIRC?
The easy way some people want to engage in censorship because they think the other people are wrong, and some of the reports that have been leaked, is something I find deeply disturbing.
Censorship is never acceptable. It is profoundly undemocratic.
But treating people with the same contempt they've shown others. Yes, that's entirely reasonable and entirely justified. Call Boris a clown, or a liar, call Mogg whatever you think of him. That too is free speech.
The Tory party have completely and utterly wasted the last 13 years and delivered nothing...
If one good thing comes out of Boris downfall and all the subsequent economic troubles since we opened back up, it will be that any future government/PM facing a pandemic will decide the problems locking everyone down would cause outweigh the benefits...
Neil Hamilton got a vote of confidence from his, even after the brown envelope scandal broke.
[REDACTED] has been reselected by their association despite being on bail for various sexual offences and having agreed not to go onto the Westminster site.
(For now, the same thing would have been to leave the question open until the unpleasantness was cleared up.)
I'm sure the same is true for other parties as well. Local parties are loyal and don't like to admit they selected a baddie.
It would need Bozo to actually do some work..
Find ways of boosting productivity, growing the pie, and tax take will increase even at the same tax rates.
Here's 2 ideas to start with.
1: Issue new North Sea licences and tax North Sea operators accordingly, rather than blocking new licences and importing hydrocarbons from overseas which are taxed abroad and just as harmful to the environment as domestically produced fuel.
2: Remove impediments to development and growth, such as reforming our planning system. New developments can be taxed accordingly, and if costs come down due to increased competition that could both reduce inflation and reduce the amount the Exchequer spends on housing support which is a major component of the non-pension welfare bill nowadays.
I'm sure others can come up with other good ideas too.
Should businesses be forced top stay open during a pandemic without any GIvernmental support?
Should people be forced to go to non essential work - as they would be if there was no formal lockdown?
You can debate about the refinements of lockdowns but the idea that they should not be considerd is dangerous rubbish.
The success of UKIP in 2015 was that it was a singular entity with a visible populist leader. Glue all of the disparate bits of their political diaspora back together, with Boris! out front campaigning to Save Brexit and Level Up Your Community and they could be a seriously disruptive force.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/47/section/50
"50 Jurisdiction of [F1Senior Courts] over solicitors.
(1) Any person duly admitted as a solicitor shall be an officer of the [F2Senior Courts] ; F3. . .
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the High Court, the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal respectively, or any division or judge of those courts, may exercise the same jurisdiction in respect of solicitors as any one of the superior courts of law or equity from which the [F4Senior Courts were] constituted might have exercised immediately before the passing of the M1Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 in respect of any solicitor, attorney or proctor admitted to practise there.
[F5(3) An appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from any order made against a solicitor by the High Court or the Crown Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction in respect of solicitors under subsection (2).]"
now
Boris fightback ramping up. Tory MPs warned they risk deselection if they vote for the partygate report.