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).]"
IANAL but does that mean all changes to the law since 1873 don't apply? So the ECHR doesn't apply?
Or does it not mean that the jurisdiction applies as it would have? So you're under the courts jurisdiction, but the law such as the ECHR or the abolition of slanderising the court as an offence surely still applies even if you're under their jurisdiction?
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
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.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local Tory association for blocking Brexit in 2019, it is not unheard of
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.
No, if every other oil and gas producing country follows the same logic as (1) then the likes of Saudi Arabia and Russia will have fewer exports but the world is not changed at all.
We need to work to reduce oil consumption. Production will rise or fall to match consumption, regardless of restrictions, since there are enough countries with enough oil who will ramp up production regardless of climate change.
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.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
AFAIK Sweden's rules were guidance and encouragement rather than police enforcement.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
A quick shout out to Keir Starmer, who persevered on the topic at PMQs when Tories attacked him for raising trivialities. We all owe him a vote of thanks. Another successful prosecution.
Yes, amazing that for once he actually acted like a competent leader of the opposition.
Of course he didn't mention the numerous lies he told to get elected Labour leader. Nor did Parliament investigate those, but of course they were only lies to the people, not to Parliament, and about policy, not trivialities, so nobody cares. Same with Blair and the Iraq war of course.
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.
Exactly.
Almost all the restrictions imposed were "Tragedy of the Commons"-style. The sort where as long as everyone else complied, any particular individual (or small group of individuals) could skip the rules with minimal risk.
Like safe sex. As long as everyone else practices safe sex, I wouldn't have to. No route for STIs to get to me. If I were to pass a law compelling safe sex in the face of a widespread and lethal STI, and then ignore it myself (because I'm okay, Jack, as long as all the others are complying), it doesn't mean it's unnecessary. Merely that I'm a hypocrite and free-rider.
Being the person who actually passed the law in the first place would make my hypocrisy even more stark and my free-riding even more contemptible.
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.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
Lillico on questions for the inquiry. Why did mitigation become suppression? Three week lockdown became three months.
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.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
AFAIK Sweden's rules were guidance and encouragement rather than police enforcement.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
For someone who posts so often and passionately on the subject you have done remarkably little research on Sweden's COVID rules.
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
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...
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.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
Given that Sweden had various distancing rules in place it sounds like you are agreeing that some measures are a good idea, just a question of which ones.
AFAIK Sweden's rules were guidance and encouragement rather than police enforcement.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
For someone who posts so often and passionately on the subject you have done remarkably little research on Sweden's COVID rules.
If you have something to say then say it.
What legal restrictions were enforced by the Police in Sweden?
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...
For what it’s worth, I think it’s absolutely clear Boris will continue to be a malign influence in the Tory Party, hovering in the background like a spectre, Thatcher-like, for some time to come.
This won’t spell the end of his influence. But I think it does spell the end of his chances of returning to frontbench politics.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 2m NEW: Mordaunt confirms debate and motion on privileges committee report on Monday - think that would mean a vote on his pass? The 90 days won't apply as he's no longer an MP
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.
Should we ban Perspex?
Among other things that’s a whole mass of medical equipment that has just been banned by inference.
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Fury from some Tory MPs about the privileges committee report hanging Boris out to dry
Ex minister: "Wow, hats off to Harriet Harman, Jenkin and Co for pulling off a pre-determined vindictive, political punishment beating which Kim Jong-Un would think maybe goes a bit far"
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.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
And when companies insist that people come into work? How do you deal wih that?
Or when shops and businesses are stuck with making a choice between risking their lives by opening or risking their business by staying closed?
I am assuming you are not suggesting that we should still have the costs of lockdown in terms of Government support and furlough schemes and just let people choose whether they take them or not? That would be unworkable.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 2m NEW: Mordaunt confirms debate and motion on privileges committee report on Monday - think that would mean a vote on his pass? The 90 days won't apply as he's no longer an MP
Fury from some Tory MPs about the privileges committee report hanging Boris out to dry
Ex minister: "Wow, hats off to Harriet Harman, Jenkin and Co for pulling off a pre-determined vindictive, political punishment beating which Kim Jong-Un would think maybe goes a bit far"
Didn't Kim Jong-Un execute someone with an anti-aircraft gun?
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
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).]"
IANAL but does that mean all changes to the law since 1873 don't apply? So the ECHR doesn't apply?
Or does it not mean that the jurisdiction applies as it would have? So you're under the courts jurisdiction, but the law such as the ECHR or the abolition of slanderising the court as an offence surely still applies even if you're under their jurisdiction?
Firstly, it's "Scandalising the Court" not "Slanderising the Court" -
The Senior Courts have an inherent jurisdiction over Solicitors that is separate from the old common law offence of scandalising the court and that was not abolished by the 2013 Act as you can see from the above link.
The ECHR doesn't apply. Article 10 as incorporated into the HRA states as follows -
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." (emphasis mine)
So, I could be had under the inherent jurisdiction of the court for insulting it. The ECHR wouldn't help me as I would be undermining the authority of the judiciary of the court of which I am an officer. The ECHR isn't a get out of jail free card for all types of speech.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
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.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
Not binning them looks weak and craven
Take your pick...
Allowing them to be announced while the Privileges committee report was in progress looks like grade 1 incompetency.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
Unless some new scandal is leaked*, specifically targeted at that? Banning would, on the contrary, seem like giving the political khazi a good dousing with Domestos.
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.
Should we ban Perspex?
Among other things that’s a whole mass of medical equipment that has just been banned by inference.
And I would like to see any of those electric cars move without hydrocarbon based lubricants.
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.
Should we ban Perspex?
Among other things that’s a whole mass of medical equipment that has just been banned by inference.
And I would like to see any of those electric cars move without hydrocarbon based lubricants.
Bring back whaling? Do wonders for the Stromness, Dundee and Whitby economies.
If it's of character, Johnson seems to have comprehensively failed it.
In re muscle/fat debate engaged in by other folk on PB, I notice that while they wait, BTL commenters on the Guardian are extensively dissecting Mr Johnson's athletic abilities and how far he actually runs when the cameras are not looking. At least one demand for a camera crew to follow him for the entirety of his athletic excursion.
He is a chunky monkey but that doesn't stop him being relatively fit or a good runner. You can be overweight and fit.
Cf Tyson Fury.
My best hope in a fight with him would be the ability to (still I think) run faster than him.
We are going to find out soon enough. All through the last year the naysayers have been waiting for the wheels to fall off. "Wait until they play X" they said. Well. England beat New Zealand, India, SA and Pakistan, all the while playing exciting cricket.
We are about to see a huge clash of styles. Make no mistake, the Aussies will play traditional test cricket. And why not - they are the World Test Champions playing this way.
I genuinely have no idea what is going to happen. Stokes has requested flat pitches as that helps the approach, but it also makes it hard to dismiss a side with Smith, Kwaja and Labuschagne (apols for any spelling errors).
I would not be surprised by ANY series score (5-0, 2-2, 0-5 etc). Although perhaps I am not expecting many draws.
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.
Except of course there is absolutely no evidence that reforming planning permission will remove impediments to development and growth.
You and I are never going to agree but I find the fact that land with planning permission can be worth 600x land without it a pretty significant indicator that planning permission is an impediment. When planning is worth upto 99.8% of the value of the land, then its hardly inconsequential now is it?
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
Nah, the concept of “I get to reward these people on my way out even though I am no longer answerable for my actions politically” (save in some situations to constituents) has always been an awful practice. Kudos to anyone who agrees to end the tradition. I don’t think the public will be overly bothered.
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
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...
For what it’s worth, I think it’s absolutely clear Boris will continue to be a malign influence in the Tory Party, hovering in the background like a spectre, Thatcher-like, for some time to come.
This won’t spell the end of his influence. But I think it does spell the end of his chances of returning to frontbench politics.
Thatcher's influence was as much about her politics and ideology as anything else though. What are Spaffer's politics, other than doing whatever it takes to gain or cling on to power?
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
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.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
And when companies insist that people come into work? How do you deal wih that?
Or when shops and businesses are stuck with making a choice between risking their lives by opening or risking their business by staying closed?
I am assuming you are not suggesting that we should still have the costs of lockdown in terms of Government support and furlough schemes and just let people choose whether they take them or not? That would be unworkable.
Sweden had a furlough scheme.
We had a furlough scheme even post-lockdown.
Yes I am 100% proposing support is offered but then people choose whether to take it or not. As we did post-lockdown, and Sweden did throughout.
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
We are going to find out soon enough. All through the last year the naysayers have been waiting for the wheels to fall off. "Wait until they play X" they said. Well. England beat New Zealand, India, SA and Pakistan, all the while playing exciting cricket.
We are about to see a huge clash of styles. Make no mistake, the Aussies will play traditional test cricket. And why not - they are the World Test Champions playing this way.
I genuinely have no idea what is going to happen. Stokes has requested flat pitches as that helps the approach, but it also makes it hard to dismiss a side with Smith, Kwaja and Labuschagne (apols for any spelling errors).
I would not be surprised by ANY series score (5-0, 2-2, 0-5 etc). Although perhaps I am not expecting many draws.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
Not binning them looks weak and craven
Take your pick...
A better idea - get rid of the whole honours system completely. Solves the problem in one stroke.
We are going to find out soon enough. All through the last year the naysayers have been waiting for the wheels to fall off. "Wait until they play X" they said. Well. England beat New Zealand, India, SA and Pakistan, all the while playing exciting cricket.
We are about to see a huge clash of styles. Make no mistake, the Aussies will play traditional test cricket. And why not - they are the World Test Champions playing this way.
I genuinely have no idea what is going to happen. Stokes has requested flat pitches as that helps the approach, but it also makes it hard to dismiss a side with Smith, Kwaja and Labuschagne (apols for any spelling errors).
I would not be surprised by ANY series score (5-0, 2-2, 0-5 etc). Although perhaps I am not expecting many draws.
"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.
Is he a man where we have a recording of him planning GBH with a chum? Perhaps!
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
What an absurd statement, even most Indian opposition leaders are Hindu too.
In the UK Sunak is a British Asian Hindu but Starmer is a white atheist and Davey a white Anglican
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.
It is really quite ludicrous. And also carries through to some otherwise sensible posters here - wanting the BOE to 'get ahead of' inflation, as if we're in some consumer-spending led boom where we all need to be discouraged from buying a third swimming pool.
As I have said before, I don't think it's based wholly upon ignorance, I think our Central Bank strategy is decided globally, the PM and Chancellor don't have the balls to challenge it (indeed the Chancellor seems to have a sociopathic relish for it), so here we are.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
Nah, the concept of “I get to reward these people on my way out even though I am no longer answerable for my actions politically” (save in some situations to constituents) has always been an awful practice. Kudos to anyone who agrees to end the tradition. I don’t think the public will be overly bothered.
One thing to do it when leaving with head still held high. Defeated by not ashamed. Major, Brown or Cameron. Probably May, perhaps even Truss.
But Johnson was drummed out in disgrace, and this is just the coup de grace. Would anyone with any dignity even want to be "honoured" by him?
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
Osborne made a linguistic mistake on Twitter that was immediately corrected by Brandon Lewis, who was the frigging Party Chairman at the time.
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.
It is really quite ludicrous. And also carries through to some otherwise sensible posters here - wanting the BOE to 'get ahead of' inflation, as if we're in some consumer-spending led boom where we all need to be discouraged from buying a third swimming pool.
As I have said before, I don't think it's based wholly upon ignorance, I think our Central Bank strategy is decided globally, the PM and Chancellor don't have the balls to challenge it (indeed the Chancellor seems to have a sociopathic relish for it), so here we are.
You need Balls as chancellor? Should have voted for chaos with Ed Miliband
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.
Every other oil and gas producing country DOES follow the same logic as (1.).
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.
Never again should we ever have a lockdown.
And when companies insist that people come into work? How do you deal wih that?
Or when shops and businesses are stuck with making a choice between risking their lives by opening or risking their business by staying closed?
I am assuming you are not suggesting that we should still have the costs of lockdown in terms of Government support and furlough schemes and just let people choose whether they take them or not? That would be unworkable.
Sweden had a furlough scheme.
We had a furlough scheme even post-lockdown.
Yes I am 100% proposing support is offered but then people choose whether to take it or not. As we did post-lockdown, and Sweden did throughout.
There are big questions about lockdowns. As I think @kle4 has said, 'successful' lockdowns would always end up being framed as not having been needed. NHS didn't fall over, so lockdown was not necessary.
I suspect the majority of people in this country supported at least some of the lockdown periods. Sweden had notably poorer covid health outcomes than comparable Nordic nations, and that matters to people, You only need to see the anger at the Covid inquiry from those who lost people.
I'd like the Inquiry to come up with a better plan. I'd like to think that providing advice would be enough, but generally I think Brits are pretty poor at taking health advice. If we were better there would be less smoking, fewer overweight/obese inactive people. There would also be those who just take the piss.
Generally I think we had to lockdown at the start. We got it wrong in my view when we had vaccinated the most at risk in not opening fast enough. I still recall in summer 2021 being made to sit at separate tables outside a pub with our cricket team. But its not right to say 'no lockdown ever again'.
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
Oh yes because Obama winning the highest percentage of the US African American vote ever in 2008 and the second highest African American vote ever in 2012 was entirely related to his moral character and brilliant policies!
Indeed if only US white voters could vote in 2012 Romney would have won the biggest presidential election voteshare in the popular vote since Bush Snr in 1988
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
Osborne made a linguistic mistake on Twitter that was immediately corrected by Brandon Lewis, who was the frigging Party Chairman at the time.
Everyone else said he was at risk of deselection. He wasn't deselected as Brandon Lewis explained.
Who to believe, the Party Chairman, or you?
Brandon Lewis is not as bright as Osborne and didn't know what he was talking about.
Once an MP loses a vote of no confidence of their local party then that party will obviously not reselect him as their candidate, so effectively the deselection and VONC loss are the same as Osborne correctly said (even if Lewis was trying to say on a technicality they aren't)
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
The BJP get a higher vote share in Leicester than India.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
Nah, the concept of “I get to reward these people on my way out even though I am no longer answerable for my actions politically” (save in some situations to constituents) has always been an awful practice. Kudos to anyone who agrees to end the tradition. I don’t think the public will be overly bothered.
I think the public would not like it, and nor would those MPs hoping to pick up end-of-term prizes from Boris, Liz Truss and, not least, Rishi Sunak.
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
Congrats for reaching concussed Basil Fawly level.
Can I ask the PB Brains Trust, what is the best way to watch The Ashes without a Sky subscription?
I cancelled Sky when we moved at the end of last year, as we almost never watch Live TV anymore anyway and so we don't have a Sky dish at our new address.
However I've never missed an Ashes (home or abroad) since the first one I followed in 1993.
It seems Now TV might be an option, don't have that currently, but the Sky Sports subscription with that seems quite pricy and there don't seem to be any deals available with it. Is that the only option, or are there any more cost-effective alternatives?
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
Osborne made a linguistic mistake on Twitter that was immediately corrected by Brandon Lewis, who was the frigging Party Chairman at the time.
Everyone else said he was at risk of deselection. He wasn't deselected as Brandon Lewis explained.
Who to believe, the Party Chairman, or you?
Brandon Lewis is not as bright as Osborne and didn't know what he was talking about.
Once an MP loses a vote of no confidence of their local party then that party will obviously not reselect him as their candidate, so effectively the deselection and VONC loss are the same as Osborne correctly said (even if Lewis was trying to say on a technicality they aren't)
Sorry, the Party Chairman was right on this. There are no laws within the Tory Party that made that assembly vote automatic or binding.
The idea you know better than the Party Chairman is utterly amusing.
Why are we the only country still stuck on covid recriminations? Does anyone really believe Johnson was the only leader who might not have followed all the rules that applied to everyone else? Could the Elysee withstand the same level of scrutiny?
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Can I ask the PB Brains Trust, what is the best way to watch The Ashes without a Sky subscription?
I cancelled Sky when we moved at the end of last year, as we almost never watch Live TV anymore anyway and so we don't have a Sky dish at our new address.
However I've never missed an Ashes (home or abroad) since the first one I followed in 1993.
It seems Now TV might be an option, don't have that currently, but the Sky Sports subscription with that seems quite pricy and there don't seem to be any deals available with it. Is that the only option, or are there any more cost-effective alternatives?
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
Osborne made a linguistic mistake on Twitter that was immediately corrected by Brandon Lewis, who was the frigging Party Chairman at the time.
Everyone else said he was at risk of deselection. He wasn't deselected as Brandon Lewis explained.
Who to believe, the Party Chairman, or you?
Brandon Lewis is not as bright as Osborne and didn't know what he was talking about.
Once an MP loses a vote of no confidence of their local party then that party will obviously not reselect him as their candidate, so effectively the deselection and VONC loss are the same as Osborne correctly said (even if Lewis was trying to say on a technicality they aren't)
Sorry, the Party Chairman was right on this. There are no laws within the Tory Party that made that assembly vote automatic or binding.
The idea you know better than the Party Chairman is utterly amusing.
No he wasn't.
If you lose a vote of no confidence of your local party they will NOT pick you again as their local candidate but select another candidate.
I have been involved in the party at least as long as Lewis if not longer
Why are we the only country still stuck on covid recriminations? Does anyone really believe Johnson was the only leader who might not have followed all the rules that applied to everyone else? Could the Elysee withstand the same level of scrutiny?
That's not what the report published today is about. It's about his breaching the restrictions and then lying about it to Parliament. If he'd just fessed up and said mistakes were made he might (might) still be PM.
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.
If your rules are based on the idea that they can be enforced by norms and morality, rather than power, than the immoral, unscrupulous and powerful have no restraints. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre falsely, you cannot libel someone, and if the aim of your speech is the insincere criticism of the necessary functioning parts of the democratic state for self service and aggrandisement, and the functioning of civil society be damned, then year - there should be consequences.
If you believe in the law, if you believe in the power of parliament, if you believe in the institutions of democracy, then they need to be protected from such charlatans because when they aren't those charlatans run rough shod over them. I think it should be considered obscene that a national paper suggested the Supreme Court was the "Enemy of the People" and that should be sanctionable - certainly more sanctionable than if, say, someone shouted it on the street corner. Again, it is one thing for the average Jo to complain about the actions and motives of politicians - it is another for the ex PM to be judged by his peers and found to be lying to parliament (something that used to be considered a resigning offence) and whipping up a public campaign against the committee who judged thusly calling them fraudsters.
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Indeed, without consequences there can be no such thing as freedom of choice - especially if you are the only one who lives consequence free. Johnson has, for far too long, been free from the consequences of his worst excesses and has therefore felt he can commit more of them. Same, in my mind, for the likes of the Daily Mail. People bemoan the dissolving on civility and compromise and talk about polarisation, but what got us here? The constant debasement of the public discourse at the hands of demagogues who have no desire or incentive to tell the truth when they keep being rewarded when all they do is grift.
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
‘Rainbow flags made me a Nazi!’
As I’ve observed before, I’m almost nostalgic for right wing 80s Thatcherism with its mantra of taking responsibility for oneself.
Can I ask the PB Brains Trust, what is the best way to watch The Ashes without a Sky subscription?
I cancelled Sky when we moved at the end of last year, as we almost never watch Live TV anymore anyway and so we don't have a Sky dish at our new address.
However I've never missed an Ashes (home or abroad) since the first one I followed in 1993.
It seems Now TV might be an option, don't have that currently, but the Sky Sports subscription with that seems quite pricy and there don't seem to be any deals available with it. Is that the only option, or are there any more cost-effective alternatives?
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
Really? I didn't think that successive South African administrations who maintained a system of government based on identity until the mid-Nineties were all that left wing? You live and learn.
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
People will usually point to past injustices as justification for payback. That's true on both right and left.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
Binning the resignation honours looks petty and vindictive.
Nah, the concept of “I get to reward these people on my way out even though I am no longer answerable for my actions politically” (save in some situations to constituents) has always been an awful practice. Kudos to anyone who agrees to end the tradition. I don’t think the public will be overly bothered.
One thing to do it when leaving with head still held high. Defeated by not ashamed. Major, Brown or Cameron. Probably May, perhaps even Truss.
But Johnson was drummed out in disgrace, and this is just the coup de grace. Would anyone with any dignity even want to be "honoured" by him?
It's odd, isn't it? That young woman, Owen, of whom nobody had heard just a few weeks ago, has now had her professional and personal reputation shredded. In her case, being "ennobled" has had exactly the opposite effect.
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
Osborne made a linguistic mistake on Twitter that was immediately corrected by Brandon Lewis, who was the frigging Party Chairman at the time.
Everyone else said he was at risk of deselection. He wasn't deselected as Brandon Lewis explained.
Who to believe, the Party Chairman, or you?
Brandon Lewis is not as bright as Osborne and didn't know what he was talking about.
Once an MP loses a vote of no confidence of their local party then that party will obviously not reselect him as their candidate, so effectively the deselection and VONC loss are the same as Osborne correctly said (even if Lewis was trying to say on a technicality they aren't)
Sorry, the Party Chairman was right on this. There are no laws within the Tory Party that made that assembly vote automatic or binding.
The idea you know better than the Party Chairman is utterly amusing.
Dominic Grieve is one MP whose removal of the whip was entirely justified.
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
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.
This seems, at best, simplistic. Yes, growing the pie is good, but increasing tax doesn't (necessarily) shrink the pie. The money is still in the economy. If the government takes the money as tax, they're still going to spend that money, on people's wages, or buying products. The money goes around.
Money can be more or less productive. If you have £10k in notes stashed under your mattress, that money is doing nothing for productivity. If the Government takes that money, perhaps in a mattress tax, and spends that money by employing some people to do some stuff, that money circulates in the economy. That money becomes productive.
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.
If your rules are based on the idea that they can be enforced by norms and morality, rather than power, than the immoral, unscrupulous and powerful have no restraints. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre falsely, you cannot libel someone, and if the aim of your speech is the insincere criticism of the necessary functioning parts of the democratic state for self service and aggrandisement, and the functioning of civil society be damned, then year - there should be consequences.
If you believe in the law, if you believe in the power of parliament, if you believe in the institutions of democracy, then they need to be protected from such charlatans because when they aren't those charlatans run rough shod over them. I think it should be considered obscene that a national paper suggested the Supreme Court was the "Enemy of the People" and that should be sanctionable - certainly more sanctionable than if, say, someone shouted it on the street corner. Again, it is one thing for the average Jo to complain about the actions and motives of politicians - it is another for the ex PM to be judged by his peers and found to be lying to parliament (something that used to be considered a resigning offence) and whipping up a public campaign against the committee who judged thusly calling them fraudsters.
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Indeed, without consequences there can be no such thing as freedom of choice - especially if you are the only one who lives consequence free. Johnson has, for far too long, been free from the consequences of his worst excesses and has therefore felt he can commit more of them. Same, in my mind, for the likes of the Daily Mail. People bemoan the dissolving on civility and compromise and talk about polarisation, but what got us here? The constant debasement of the public discourse at the hands of demagogues who have no desire or incentive to tell the truth when they keep being rewarded when all they do is grift.
Sorry, but I could not disagree with you more.
The way to have consequences is to have an electorate that votes for consequences. To have free speech and to have those who are right win the arguments in the free exchange of ideas.
The second you start sanctioning people for speaking freely, even wrongly, you are allowing those who would use that power for malign purposes to do so with no checks or balances.
Demagogues shouting from the sidelines but dismissed as cranks by the electorate is infinitely superior to demagogues in power silencing their critics because their critics are not saying the demagogues version of "truth".
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.
Grieve was deselected by his local association in 2019, it is not unheard of
No he wasn't. They had a non-binding vote which was opposed by amongst others Boris Johnson.
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
It was a binding vote in terms of who the next party candidate would be in Beaconsfield, as without the Local Association's backing he would not have been selected as the official Conservative candidate there in 2019 even if Boris still backed him at the time (before even CCHQ got fed up with him and removed him from the party national approved candidates list and party whip in Parliament)
Completely wrong, as George Osborne and others who know far better than you said in the article the actions of the association could be overridden by the party executive.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Wrong. All Osborne said was that CCHQ could suspend the local party and effectively impose its own candidate (which CCHQ didn't in this case). Indeed the party whips removed the whip from Grieve only a few months later and CCHQ removed Grieve from the approved national Conservative candidates list too.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
Grieve was never deselected by the association, that is a fact.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Even Osborne in that very link says, and I quote 'Dominic Grieve is deselected.'
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
Osborne made a linguistic mistake on Twitter that was immediately corrected by Brandon Lewis, who was the frigging Party Chairman at the time.
Everyone else said he was at risk of deselection. He wasn't deselected as Brandon Lewis explained.
Who to believe, the Party Chairman, or you?
Brandon Lewis is not as bright as Osborne and didn't know what he was talking about.
Once an MP loses a vote of no confidence of their local party then that party will obviously not reselect him as their candidate, so effectively the deselection and VONC loss are the same as Osborne correctly said (even if Lewis was trying to say on a technicality they aren't)
Sorry, the Party Chairman was right on this. There are no laws within the Tory Party that made that assembly vote automatic or binding.
The idea you know better than the Party Chairman is utterly amusing.
Dominic Grieve is one MP whose removal of the whip was entirely justified.
Oh indeed, but the removal of the whip happened in the Autumn when he voted against the three line whip called as a confidence motion.
It did not happen due to the silly association vote six months earlier to which HYUFD is referring.
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 keep telling @HYUFD that even in India, which is 80% Hindu, in 2019 only 36% of Indian voters backed Modi's BJP.
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
HYUFD is like the worst of the most-extreme on the woke "intersectionality" side of debates, and I say that as someone who is pretty woke.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
The whole identity thing was started by the left, so they only have themselves to blame for the resulting tribalism.
How did "the left" start the "identity thing"? Was it the left who put up signs saying No Blacks No Irish No Dogs? Identity politics is just an effort to dismantle identity-based discrimination and inequality, which wasn't created by anyone on the left. Attacking identity politics is just another way of saying Know Your Place.
Hatred of the traditional family, hatred of the nation state, hatred of the royal family, hatred of the West and its history and Christian and Jewish historical culture, hatred of capitalism, hatred of white working class males' views. All from the left
Yet on the whole we woke libtards don’t tend to drive into groups of righties to murder them, storm the seat of government or protest with mock gallows. Guess all that is still our fault though.
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.
If your rules are based on the idea that they can be enforced by norms and morality, rather than power, than the immoral, unscrupulous and powerful have no restraints. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theatre falsely, you cannot libel someone, and if the aim of your speech is the insincere criticism of the necessary functioning parts of the democratic state for self service and aggrandisement, and the functioning of civil society be damned, then year - there should be consequences.
If you believe in the law, if you believe in the power of parliament, if you believe in the institutions of democracy, then they need to be protected from such charlatans because when they aren't those charlatans run rough shod over them. I think it should be considered obscene that a national paper suggested the Supreme Court was the "Enemy of the People" and that should be sanctionable - certainly more sanctionable than if, say, someone shouted it on the street corner. Again, it is one thing for the average Jo to complain about the actions and motives of politicians - it is another for the ex PM to be judged by his peers and found to be lying to parliament (something that used to be considered a resigning offence) and whipping up a public campaign against the committee who judged thusly calling them fraudsters.
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Indeed, without consequences there can be no such thing as freedom of choice - especially if you are the only one who lives consequence free. Johnson has, for far too long, been free from the consequences of his worst excesses and has therefore felt he can commit more of them. Same, in my mind, for the likes of the Daily Mail. People bemoan the dissolving on civility and compromise and talk about polarisation, but what got us here? The constant debasement of the public discourse at the hands of demagogues who have no desire or incentive to tell the truth when they keep being rewarded when all they do is grift.
Freedom of speech IS freedom from official consequence or it is not freedom of speech. There are many things I could choose to find objectionable, false and offensive in many of your posts. But I would nt for a moment consider that you should not be allowed to say them.
It was and is absolutely right that Johnson is out of Parliament. It would not be right at all to sanction him or anyone else for saying they disagree with that sanction and for making clear they feel the system has been abused by their enemies. I think they are stupidy wrong in those claims but they should have the absolute right to make them free of official sanction.
Comments
Or does it not mean that the jurisdiction applies as it would have? So you're under the courts jurisdiction, but the law such as the ECHR or the abolition of slanderising the court as an offence surely still applies even if you're under their jurisdiction?
Pull the other one. He's gone, what a bad and pathetic joke that is.
Given Privileges Committee report (and well done to those Tories especially who refused to be cowed by the Trumpian nonsense) Sunak now needs to step up and make clear the following … 1. none of the resignation honours will go forward.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/30/dominic-grieve-loses-confidence-vote-held-by-beaconsfield-tories
Luciana Berger faced a vote of No Confidence from Wavertree Labour Branch for criticising then Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47169929
We need to work to reduce oil consumption. Production will rise or fall to match consumption, regardless of restrictions, since there are enough countries with enough oil who will ramp up production regardless of climate change.
If so, then yes I totally agree, give guidance but then let people choose.
Of course he didn't mention the numerous lies he told to get elected Labour leader. Nor did Parliament investigate those, but of course they were only lies to the people, not to Parliament, and about policy, not trivialities, so nobody cares. Same with Blair and the Iraq war of course.
Almost all the restrictions imposed were "Tragedy of the Commons"-style. The sort where as long as everyone else complied, any particular individual (or small group of individuals) could skip the rules with minimal risk.
Like safe sex. As long as everyone else practices safe sex, I wouldn't have to. No route for STIs to get to me. If I were to pass a law compelling safe sex in the face of a widespread and lethal STI, and then ignore it myself (because I'm okay, Jack, as long as all the others are complying), it doesn't mean it's unnecessary. Merely that I'm a hypocrite and free-rider.
Being the person who actually passed the law in the first place would make my hypocrisy even more stark and my free-riding even more contemptible.
That's why he got so much backlash.
Three questions the Covid inquiry must answer
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/14/the-questions-the-covid-inquiry-must-answer/
Grieve remained the Conservative and was not deselected until he got expelled for voting against a three line whip and having the whip removed.
What legal restrictions were enforced by the Police in Sweden?
The vote on Monday WILL be on whether to block Boris Johnson’s Parliament pass as an ex MP.
It will be a free vote on the Tory side, I understand
This won’t spell the end of his influence. But I think it does spell the end of his chances of returning to frontbench politics.
Beth Rigby
@BethRigby
·
2m
NEW: Mordaunt confirms debate and motion on privileges committee report on Monday - think that would mean a vote on his pass? The 90 days won't apply as he's no longer an MP
Among other things that’s a whole mass of medical equipment that has just been banned by inference.
Is it suitable for kids?
Yes, there are no swear words and all adult themes are dealt with quite childishly.
Fury from some Tory MPs about the privileges committee report hanging Boris out to dry
Ex minister: "Wow, hats off to Harriet Harman, Jenkin and Co for pulling off a pre-determined vindictive, political punishment beating which Kim Jong-Un would think maybe goes a bit far"
Or when shops and businesses are stuck with making a choice between risking their lives by opening or risking their business by staying closed?
I am assuming you are not suggesting that we should still have the costs of lockdown in terms of Government support and furlough schemes and just let people choose whether they take them or not? That would be unworkable.
I wouldn't give people ideas.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/22/section/33
The Senior Courts have an inherent jurisdiction over Solicitors that is separate from the old common law offence of scandalising the court and that was not abolished by the 2013 Act as you can see from the above link.
The ECHR doesn't apply. Article 10 as incorporated into the HRA states as follows -
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." (emphasis mine)
So, I could be had under the inherent jurisdiction of the court for insulting it. The ECHR wouldn't help me as I would be undermining the authority of the judiciary of the court of which I am an officer. The ECHR isn't a get out of jail free card for all types of speech.
Take your pick...
Vote confirmed for Monday - Boris Johnson's birthday.
Three years since the birthday party for which he was fined.
He was never formally deselected because of that silly vote. That's why the article says he's "at risk" of being deselected rather than he actually was, he never actually was.
Take your pick...
*Edit: including what comes out in the report.
My best hope in a fight with him would be the ability to (still I think) run faster than him.
We are about to see a huge clash of styles. Make no mistake, the Aussies will play traditional test cricket. And why not - they are the World Test Champions playing this way.
I genuinely have no idea what is going to happen. Stokes has requested flat pitches as that helps the approach, but it also makes it hard to dismiss a side with Smith, Kwaja and Labuschagne (apols for any spelling errors).
I would not be surprised by ANY series score (5-0, 2-2, 0-5 etc). Although perhaps I am not expecting many draws.
A key measurement to business transparency and opportunities is that businesses can reliably operate and act with delays measured in days or weeks, not years. The planning system can hold up developments for years and the risk of that is enough to keep small businesses out of the market almost altogether leaving the market to an oligopoly who can afford to land bank and abuse the system safe from competition from smaller firms.
Once Grieve lost the confidence vote of his local party they were obviously not going to reselect him as their candidate for the general election
EDIT The rest is FPTP!
We had a furlough scheme even post-lockdown.
Yes I am 100% proposing support is offered but then people choose whether to take it or not. As we did post-lockdown, and Sweden did throughout.
He wasn't the candidate as he was expelled, but his expulsion is entirely unrelated to the association's actions which were rejected across the board by everyone sensible in the party. With even Boris Johnson being amongst those sensible people you're not a part of.
Its fast food vs a decent restaurant meal
Even had CCHQ kept Grieve on the national candidates list and he had kept the whip in the Commons he would STILL have been unable to stand as a Conservative candidate again in Beaconsfield as the local party had voted no confidence in him and would have not reselected him as their candidate but picked another candidate from the party approved list.
To him everyone can be boiled down to an identity and identities act as a class in one way. Even if its only a plurality of the identity who acts that way, if he determines that you're that identity you either act the same way as the plurality of others he's lumped you with, or you simply don't count.
In the UK Sunak is a British Asian Hindu but Starmer is a white atheist and Davey a white Anglican
As I have said before, I don't think it's based wholly upon ignorance, I think our Central Bank strategy is decided globally, the PM and Chancellor don't have the balls to challenge it (indeed the Chancellor seems to have a sociopathic relish for it), so here we are.
But Johnson was drummed out in disgrace, and this is just the coup de grace. Would anyone with any dignity even want to be "honoured" by him?
https://twitter.com/BrandonLewis/status/1111913989481684994.
@George_Osborne Dominic has not been deselected & I agree (as I outlined on @BBCr4today) he is an outstanding colleague who we will continue to support.
Everyone else said he was at risk of deselection. He wasn't deselected as Brandon Lewis explained.
Who to believe, the Party Chairman, or you?
I suspect the majority of people in this country supported at least some of the lockdown periods. Sweden had notably poorer covid health outcomes than comparable Nordic nations, and that matters to people, You only need to see the anger at the Covid inquiry from those who lost people.
I'd like the Inquiry to come up with a better plan. I'd like to think that providing advice would be enough, but generally I think Brits are pretty poor at taking health advice. If we were better there would be less smoking, fewer overweight/obese inactive people. There would also be those who just take the piss.
Generally I think we had to lockdown at the start. We got it wrong in my view when we had vaccinated the most at risk in not opening fast enough. I still recall in summer 2021 being made to sit at separate tables outside a pub with our cricket team. But its not right to say 'no lockdown ever again'.
Indeed if only US white voters could vote in 2012 Romney would have won the biggest presidential election voteshare in the popular vote since Bush Snr in 1988
Once an MP loses a vote of no confidence of their local party then that party will obviously not reselect him as their candidate, so effectively the deselection and VONC loss are the same as Osborne correctly said (even if Lewis was trying to say on a technicality they aren't)
I cancelled Sky when we moved at the end of last year, as we almost never watch Live TV anymore anyway and so we don't have a Sky dish at our new address.
However I've never missed an Ashes (home or abroad) since the first one I followed in 1993.
It seems Now TV might be an option, don't have that currently, but the Sky Sports subscription with that seems quite pricy and there don't seem to be any deals available with it. Is that the only option, or are there any more cost-effective alternatives?
The idea you know better than the Party Chairman is utterly amusing.
If you lose a vote of no confidence of your local party they will NOT pick you again as their local candidate but select another candidate.
I have been involved in the party at least as long as Lewis if not longer
If you believe in the law, if you believe in the power of parliament, if you believe in the institutions of democracy, then they need to be protected from such charlatans because when they aren't those charlatans run rough shod over them. I think it should be considered obscene that a national paper suggested the Supreme Court was the "Enemy of the People" and that should be sanctionable - certainly more sanctionable than if, say, someone shouted it on the street corner. Again, it is one thing for the average Jo to complain about the actions and motives of politicians - it is another for the ex PM to be judged by his peers and found to be lying to parliament (something that used to be considered a resigning offence) and whipping up a public campaign against the committee who judged thusly calling them fraudsters.
Free speech is not freedom from consequence. Indeed, without consequences there can be no such thing as freedom of choice - especially if you are the only one who lives consequence free. Johnson has, for far too long, been free from the consequences of his worst excesses and has therefore felt he can commit more of them. Same, in my mind, for the likes of the Daily Mail. People bemoan the dissolving on civility and compromise and talk about polarisation, but what got us here? The constant debasement of the public discourse at the hands of demagogues who have no desire or incentive to tell the truth when they keep being rewarded when all they do is grift.
As I’ve observed before, I’m almost nostalgic for right wing 80s Thatcherism with its mantra of taking responsibility for oneself.
Now I see they're offering £21 a month. That wasn't listed yesterday! Glad I waited before signing up.
Money can be more or less productive. If you have £10k in notes stashed under your mattress, that money is doing nothing for productivity. If the Government takes that money, perhaps in a mattress tax, and spends that money by employing some people to do some stuff, that money circulates in the economy. That money becomes productive.
The way to have consequences is to have an electorate that votes for consequences. To have free speech and to have those who are right win the arguments in the free exchange of ideas.
The second you start sanctioning people for speaking freely, even wrongly, you are allowing those who would use that power for malign purposes to do so with no checks or balances.
Demagogues shouting from the sidelines but dismissed as cranks by the electorate is infinitely superior to demagogues in power silencing their critics because their critics are not saying the demagogues version of "truth".
It did not happen due to the silly association vote six months earlier to which HYUFD is referring.
I think BoZo is more amoral than immoral. The latter requires an understanding of morality.
It was and is absolutely right that Johnson is out of Parliament. It would not be right at all to sanction him or anyone else for saying they disagree with that sanction and for making clear they feel the system has been abused by their enemies. I think they are stupidy wrong in those claims but they should have the absolute right to make them free of official sanction.