Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110509)

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36110510)

Replaced by who?

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36110507)

My wife said she was listening on radio (Moral Maze?) and it was commented that before the election people knew Mr Boris was an affable chap who liked to please people and was a bit of a clown. That he behaved in that way shouldn't be a surprise. He wants to be liked even if he should really be firmer.


But further to this, it really isn't that much of an issue. It's looking back a fair way about something they shouldn't really have done but really isn't that important. I read that some mother was complaining that a family member died (not HRM) and they held a "work event". Not really related unless someone attending contracted covid, passed it on etc. And I would say the same about Starmer or any others. If there is something that need investigating, investigate and deal with appropriately. This isn't something that really affects the nation or needs immediate action.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110514)

The issue is that it breaks the contract between government and the people. That's extremely important. You only have to look at countries like France that don't have such a strong connection between the two to see how this manifests itself in lower vaccination rates and civil disobedience.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36110510)

Replaced by who?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110515)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110515)

Is there a contract? I get the point, namely that the Guvmin and its employees should not be a law unto themselves contrary to what the people are allowed to do. But Tweetiepooh has a point that the real job of government must continue uninterrupted, which I suspect is happening (ministers exercising their briefs).

It’s just Boris, behaving like he was still at Eton who needs sorting out.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110522)

I don't think you can really have a member of the House of Lords as PM. I know it's allowed but it'll look ridiculous.

---------- Post added at 12:27 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------



Well exactly, they can get on with the day to day running of the country.

The extent to which the turmoil in No 10 impacts is the fault of Johnson/No 10. The media isn't obliged to go easy on the Government because they have important work to do.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110515)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110528)

The media should be concentrating on the real news, not the outbursts from that arrogant nobody with a grudge, Dominic Cummings.

I suspect that the Gray report will put the partygate affair in context and make a lot of people look very silly.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110519)

What, an unelected bureaucrat telling us what to do?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110536)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110536)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110528)

The media should be concentrating on the real news, not the outbursts from that arrogant nobody with a grudge, Dominic Cummings.

I suspect that the Gray report will put the partygate affair in context and make a lot of people look very silly.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110541)

Once again…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-600451

Johnson, who set the terms of reference, and who will see the report first, will then decide if he’s done anything wrong, and if he wants to refer himself for further investigation, he could.

what has he done in the past that makes you think this might happen?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110540)

In 1963.

IIRC the last peer to hold any of the great offices was Lord Carrington, who resigned as Foreign Secretary in 1982 having apparently given Argentina the impression that we wouldn’t defend the Falkland Islands.

The Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, on advice from the outgoing PM who tells her who is most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. It is vanishingly unlikely that even MPs on the government benches would support a candidate from the Lords. It would be absolutely impossible to justify to their constituents, it would breach almost 60 years of convention and it would give rise to all sorts of difficult headlines as the Lord PM sought to buy off a sitting MP in a sufficiently safe seat for him to try to get into the Commons at a by election.

All of which I’m sure you know, so what’s your point really?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110542)

Exactly.

The man who denied seeing any parties is now saying he's not seen any bullying by the whips. That's pretty much an admission that there has been such bullying.

If there's not a trending hashtag #LabourForBoJo then I'm sure there will be one soon. ;)

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110503)

That's why it's important a Government doesn't waste its authority. This isn't the media's fault, it's their fault for displaying such disregard for their own rules and the public and their incompetence in handling it when they got caught out.

The media are reporting it because the public care. It's almost always the case that what the public and media care about is, to a neutral observer, objectively out of proportion to what is actually happening in the world.

At any one time there is turmoil on the Indian border with Kashmir, China's treatment of the Uyghurs, there has been a war in Yemen for years now and civil wars in some African states whilst our front pages will focus on the fact that Ant and/or Dec have crashed their car.

Thankfully when it comes to Ukraine the Foreign Office and MOD can just get on with it. They don't need Parliament and even if they did there is a consensus on it.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110542)

Exactly.

The man who denied seeing any parties is now saying he's not seen any bullying by the whips. That's pretty much an admission that there has been such bullying.

If there's not a trending hashtag #LabourForBoJo then I'm sure there will be one soon. ;)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110544)

1963 is irrelevant. The mechanism is available.

I was asked in an earlier post whom I suggest might replace Boris. I happen to think Frost would be a valid candidate. Plus John Redwood, of course.


---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:05 ----------



Nice one!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110548)

Oh, come off it, Andrew, this is becoming a farce and you are just feeding into it.

The world of politics is brutal, and the Whips have always strong-armed MPs to tow the party line - Whips on both sides, that is.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110549)

1963 is highly relevant. If you don’t understand the role and power of convention in parliamentary affairs you really have no business making such daft assertions.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110549)

1963 is highly relevant. If you don’t understand the role and power of convention in parliamentary affairs you really have no business making such daft assertions.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110554)

You are correct to point at the importance of convention in parliamentary affairs. But to be fair to Seph, you should not discount the importance of precedents, which are equally important.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110555)

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110557)

Again, just because you can arrange words in a sentence doesn’t mean you’re making any sense.

Precedent and convention are two cheeks of the same arse. There is a reason why the last member of the Lords to become PM sought election to the Commons at the earliest opportunity. By 1963 our parliamentary democracy had matured to the point where it was no longer acceptable for the Prime Minister not to be directly accountable to the elected house. In effect, the precedent of Alex Douglas Home resigning his peerage so he could get elected created the convention that the PM must be a sitting MP.

Neither precedent nor convention simply arise out of nowhere. There is always some pressing reason, whether it be a national emergency or a sea-change in attitudes around what’s deemed acceptable. It is highly unlikely that any national emergency is about to arise that would justify creating an unelected prime minister, even temporarily, and your attempt to raise precedent as a possible reason why it might happen is as daft as Seph’s.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------



Politically, no, it’s not possible, and that’s all that actually matters. We have almost arrived at the point where the changing of a prime minister mid-term makes demands for a snap general election irresistible. To think any party would get away with arranging a safe by election seat for an ex-member of the House of Lords is pure fantasy.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110559)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110555)

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110552)

This topic is becoming a farce. Look, when I started this poll, I actually voted he should go, but now I don’t. I get there is angry people out there, who sacrificed last minute chances go be with loved ones and many lies have been told by No. 10. But I actually think there is many people out there, who now don’t care, millions of people broke lockdown rules, and I’m convinced on here, there is quite a few of you who perhaps didn’t stick to them either.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110547)

Sorry but I actually think the media have been pathetic here. How long have they sat on that Reynolds Email, too many gotcha moments. Sure Johnson and the No. 10 cabal, are clearly guilty of several misdemeanours, Starmer also breaking the rules too, having a beer with a colleague is not working in my eyes. If I started drinking on shift, while working I’d be sacked for gross misconduct, but I think there is a time and place to deal with this and I don’t think it’s during the potential prospect of a devastating war.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110552)

This topic is becoming a farce. Look, when I started this poll, I actually voted he should go, but now I don’t. I get there is angry people out there, who sacrificed last minute chances go be with loved ones and many lies have been told by No. 10. But I actually think there is many people out there, who now don’t care, millions of people broke lockdown rules, and I’m convinced on here, there is quite a few of you who perhaps didn’t stick to them either.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110566)

I don't think the media sat on it. Whoever leaked to them did.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110566)

As for there being a time and place to deal with it well it came to light now. So they have to deal with it. There is always going to be something else going on and the Government have to be able to deal with it. Johnson could have dealt with this last month if he was honest instead of lying. That dishonesty is probably more damaging for him that the party accusations themselves..

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110564)

False equivalence. The public didn't make those rules.

Saving Johnson hands Starmer the keys to No. 10.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110573)

As bad as Boris has been, he’s never been my favourite but I could never vote for Labour for many reasons. Racism and Antisemitic tendencies, sure Starmer has done cleanup, but he was propping up Corbyn when he was leader and it was all going on. Labour lies that led to an illegal war in Iraq and million dying, it was the biggest foreign affairs disaster they ever undertook.

But I have to say, just look at this poll….(I know, I do not like polling)

But this is truly Devastating for Starmer, with all the flack going on with Johnson, many people still could never vote for Labour and I’m in that camp.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110573)

But I have to say, just look at this poll….(I know, I do not like polling)

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 36110577)

A Twitter survey on a to the right of politics news channel. That's a self selecting poll if ever I saw one!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110564)

False equivalence. The public didn't make those rules.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110575)

That's an online Twitter poll from GB News.

Here is a proper, weighted, poll of a broad cross section of the public:https://twitter.com/BritainElects/st...52509838565377



These numbers are extremely soft but I am willing to bet you that more than 9% of voters will back Labour at the next election.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110578)

Just like polls conducted on Channel4, BBC, Guardian... they are all skewed either way because of the bias they hold and GB News is not right wing by the way. Sure they have some biased presenters but no different to the above mentioned channels so your point is moot.

Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 36110581)

Most media polls are done in conjunction with polling companies, not as a poll on Twitter. Those polling companies usually try to have defined methodologies about how they select polling questions and who they ask.

For instance here's YouGov's page - https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/ and here's Opinium's https://www.opinium.com/political-polling/

However the polling companies don't then control how the results are published in the media, and I would think that all media companies both left and right have some examples of where the summaries of the polls don't accurately reflect what was actually asked and answered.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110564)

False equivalence. The public didn't make those rules.

Saving Johnson hands Starmer the keys to No. 10.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110580)

I've said many times polls can be wrong and have been wrong in the past - sure GB News poll is off from normal polling but you are conveniently missing the point that Labour are unelectable to many many people, despite the issues with the Tory party, millions will never vote for them and I am in that camp. Keir Starmer has zero charisma and plus of the issues of propping up a leader with Anti-Semitic rhetoric that was rife when Corbyn was leader.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36110579)

Completely irrelevant, it makes no difference who made the rules.

Unless of course you are now saying its fine to break any law or rule, as long as you are not the person who made that law/rule. :erm:

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36110584)

Wishful thinking, Andrew, do you really think anyone will give a toss two years and three months down the line?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110557)

Again, just because you can arrange words in a sentence doesn’t mean you’re making any sense.

Precedent and convention are two cheeks of the same arse. There is a reason why the last member of the Lords to become PM sought election to the Commons at the earliest opportunity. By 1963 our parliamentary democracy had matured to the point where it was no longer acceptable for the Prime Minister not to be directly accountable to the elected house. In effect, the precedent of Alex Douglas Home resigning his peerage so he could get elected created the convention that the PM must be a sitting MP.

Neither precedent nor convention simply arise out of nowhere. There is always some pressing reason, whether it be a national emergency or a sea-change in attitudes around what’s deemed acceptable. It is highly unlikely that any national emergency is about to arise that would justify creating an unelected prime minister, even temporarily, and your attempt to raise precedent as a possible reason why it might happen is as daft as Seph’s.

---------- Post added at 14:52 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------



Politically, no, it’s not possible, and that’s all that actually matters. We have almost arrived at the point where the changing of a prime minister mid-term makes demands for a snap general election irresistible. To think any party would get away with arranging a safe by election seat for an ex-member of the House of Lords is pure fantasy.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110594)

I think you are a bit of a purist, Chris! I'm sure that Bercow would have made maximum use of precedents to do something dubious! :D

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110587)

Private Eye has reported that The Government offered a change in the law for the Queen so that - for one day - the restrictions would be lifted in order that she didn't attend Prince Philip's funeral alone. She declined because she didn't think it was fair when others in the country had to grieve in the same way. "She wanted to set an example rather than be an exception to the rules". That's what a leader should do. The contrast with Johnson is huge.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110595)

Please provide an example to back up your assertion… :)

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110602)

Here’s one - you’ll probably remember it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-break-brexit/

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110606)

Dubious ≠ "something you disagreed with"… ;)

He used something from Erskine May, which is the Parliamentary rule book - how is this "dubious"?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110608)

Nobody expected Bercow to use this ancient precedent. If could go back to the year dot for a precedent, he would. If he couldn’t find one, he’d make one of his own.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110610)

Now you’re just projecting…

You can’t find an example where he used precedent to do something actually dubious, so now you’re reduced to stating that he would have if he had to… :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110601)

The monarch isn’t above the law - we had a civil war over that question. Ours is a constitutional monarchy, which in practice is a delicate and arcane interweaving of parliament and crown. MPs swear allegiance to the Queen, but when she comes to formally open each parliamentary session, her representative (Black Rod) has the door slammed in his face.

It is of course absolutely inconceivable that she would do anything that would risk her ending up in court.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110613)

Yeah, yeah. I hope you are satisfied with that response.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36110616)

Yes she is above the law, for the simple reason, she is immune to prosecution, she cannot be tried in any courts because they’re her courts, for all Judicial appointments require swearing an oath to the crown.



http://www.britishheritage.com/royal...izabeth-murder

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110587)

It does make a difference.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110587)

We expect politicians to abide by the laws they make.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110644)

I do hold people who make the laws (and enforce them in terms of the police) to a higher standard than original citizens.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36110721)

Maybe the wrong place, but . . . .


another one with an axe to grind almost 12 months after the 'incident' . . why wait all this time to complain?

Nusrat Ghani: Muslimness a reason for my sacking, says ex-minister

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60100525

Just bugger off back into the woodwork you've crawled from :mad:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36110742)

Good fiction takes time to evolve.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110725)

Because others have, in the last week, raised questions about the Whips behaviours?

And why didn’t she say more before? As explained in your link

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36110751)

So she's saying she didn't report these (alleged) racist remarks to the media or police at that time because her politics career was more important . . . until it suddenly isn't?

Sorry, but people who complain years after an event don't get my sympathy . . . do it when it occurs, not when there's an opening to get the boot in.*

*applies to cricketers too

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36110752)

I’m not sure there’s anything unusual or suspicious about preferring to use internal grievance procedures as far as possible, especially when your career advancement is at risk.

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36110751)

So she's saying she didn't report these (alleged) racist remarks to the media or police at that time because her politics career was more important . . . until it suddenly isn't?

Sorry, but people who complain years after an event don't get my sympathy . . . do it when it occurs, not when there's an opening to get the boot in.*

*applies to cricketers too

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36110754)

What about those who faced mental, physical or sexual abuse as children ?

What about those who were physically and or sexually assaulted or raped whilst they were in an abusive relationship

Do they not deserve your sympathy if they report it later ?

Pretty disgusting comment Carth, you’re normally better than this.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36110753)

I guess the question is why she didn't avail herself of those internal procedures either. Although as found with Labour and the anti-semitism issue you would probably have to be pretty bloody stupid to trust the internal procedures of a political party.

Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36110758)

It's just one big snore-fest now.:sleep:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36110751)

So she's saying she didn't report these (alleged) racist remarks to the media or police at that time because her politics career was more important . . . until it suddenly isn't?

Sorry, but people who complain years after an event don't get my sympathy . . . do it when it occurs, not when there's an opening to get the boot in.*

*applies to cricketers too

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110757)

Whilst Johnson has been fond of asking us to wait for the Sue Gray report, it now transpires that we may not see it all, despite previous promises.

From The Telegraph via MSN
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...cid=uxbndlbing

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110760)

I've paused my streaming subs, there's just too much entertainment to be found in the twilight days of the Johnson regime! TV entertainment doesn't get any better than mid-day Wednesdays on the news channels or BBC Parliament. Can't wait!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110766)

You are a very sad man, Andrew.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110766)

You are a very sad man, Andrew.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110767)

I'm very happy and have saved a few bob in pesky streaming fees too. What's not to like? :clap:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110768)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36110768)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110770)

Exactly.


:clap: Send him to the Tower. if he needs a visitor, I'm sure Old Boy would pop by and pay his respects.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110775)

You seem to know more about the result of this inquiry than anyone else. Yet it’s not been published yet.

Still, let’s not let the facts get in the way of damning a Conservative Prime Minister, eh, Andrew?

All of this should be treated as the trivia that it is.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110781)

The facts condemn Johnson, not me.

Johnson is Conservative in name only. He has a high-spending, high interventionist inclination. Think of Thatcher and he's the opposite.

If you elect a clown, you get a circus. Don't blame the audience for enjoying the show!

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110781)

The facts condemn Johnson, not me.

Johnson is Conservative in name only. He has a high-spending, high interventionist inclination. Think of Thatcher and he's the opposite.

If you elect a clown, you get a circus. Don't blame the audience for enjoying the show!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110807)

If you are referring to the facts relating to the ‘parties’, we don’t have them yet.

As far as the culture of no 10 is concerned, it’s probably the same as it has been for previous governments of both persuasions.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110810)

We have enough facts to condemn Johnson for lying.

In terms of the culture at No 10, "probably" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Any evidence?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110813)

No, we don’t. All we have are allegations.

As for the drinking culture, you can look this up for yourself. Here’s one article on it. I picked the publisher just for you!

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...rs-and-alcohol

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110815)

We have more than allegations Old Boy. We know he attended on 20 May 2020 and we've seen the 100-person invite showing it to be a party.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110832)

Great - only a few days to find out if Johnson will decide to have himself investigated…

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110833)

If that was the case, Downing Street would have said so. And as to what we will see of the report and when is still unknown.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110541)

Once again…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-600451

Johnson, who set the terms of reference, and who will see the report first, will then decide if he’s done anything wrong, and if he wants to refer himself for further investigation, he could.

what has he done in the past that makes you think this might happen?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110832)

Great - only a few days to find out if Johnson will decide to have himself investigated…

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110839)

Isn’t that what the inquiry is actually doing, Hugh? Or did you mean ‘decide on whether he should be subject to a disciplinary investigation’?

I think it will be apparent from Gray’s report on the nature of the ‘parties’, their purpose and whether BJ knew about them whether he’s guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36110858)

From the post directly above yours...



Her terms of reference do not include (as has been stated repeatedly) deciding whether Johnson is guilty or not.

btw, what are 'parties'? Are they like the parties held in No.10 that Johnson apologised for, on the eve of Prince Philip's funeral, or are they like 'work meetings' with socialising and bring your own booze?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110860)

One thing to underline - per the Dominic Raab interview I cited yesterday - it's not guaranteed how much of the report the general public will be, um, party to.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36110857)

Starting to feel more and more that these are indeed the twilight days of the current regime.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60117513

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36110862)

He said there would be sufficient information to enable the public and the House of Commons to come to a judgement.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36110876)

I wonder if the Gray report will be as thorough as the Shameful Chakrabarti report was.