• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
And now thanks to Johnson's desperate attack on Starmer, a mob of protestors ganged up on the latter and hurled slurs at him, including about Jimmy Saville.

Was it because of Johnson's attack on Starmer?

To be clear, what the protestors did was totally wrong. What Johnson said about Starmer was totally wrong. But as I understand it, the protest was mostly about Labour supporting the lockdown, so it isn't clear to me that the one caused the other.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,484
Location
Taunton or Kent
Was it because of Johnson's attack on Starmer?

To be clear, what the protestors did was totally wrong. What Johnson said about Starmer was totally wrong. But as I understand it, the protest was mostly about Labour supporting the lockdown, so it isn't clear to me that the one caused the other.
Maybe not because of it, but there's no question Johnson's verbal attack influenced some of what the protestors said, as no-one was talking about Savile in relation to Starmer's DPP tenure until Johnson said what he said in Parliament when the Gray report summary was released. This is also what the media are focusing on the most.
 

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,128
Location
Liverpool
It depends what the apology is for.

If it's for the "Savile slur", then we can all agree that's well overdue -- but also weeks old. I've no interest in the continued focus on this. Maybe other people do, that's fine.

But if it's for "his comments inciting a mob to attack Starmer", then no he shouldn't apologise for that. He didn't.
Well, if the claim Johnson made was false, which is what some claim, then he lied to Parliament
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,484
Location
Taunton or Kent
Meanwhile Johnson's playing the Cabinet reshuffle card again:


Boris Johnson is expected to begin a cabinet reshuffle soon, as part of his promise to revitalise the government.
The prime minister, under pressure over parties in Downing Street during lockdown, will start meeting ministers inside No 10 soon for what are being described as "small" changes.
It is expected that the Chief Whip, Mark Spencer, will be moved, the BBC's political editor Laura Kuenssberg said.
Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg could also take a new Brexit-related role.
The PM has already changed many of his advisers and other No 10 staff, five of whom quit last week.
The reshuffle comes as Mr Johnson is coming under pressure from opposition parties - and some within his own - to quit.
In her report on gatherings that took place in Downing Street during lockdowns, published last week, senior civil servant Sue Gray criticised "failures of leadership and judgement".
In response, Mr Johnson has promised a "change" in culture and to consult Conservative MPs more on setting policy.
Meanwhile, No 10 has said the prime minister has no intention of apologising after falsely claiming that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer had failed to prosecute serial sex offender Jimmy Savile when he was director of public prosecutions.
The reshuffle follows several backbench Tory MPs criticising his leadership. If 54 MPs write letters to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the Conservative Party's 1922 Committee, this will prompt a vote of no-confidence in the prime minister.
If he lost this, there would be a full leadership contest, in which Mr Johnson could not run.
At the last cabinet reshuffle, in September last year, Nadine Dorries became culture secretary and Liz Truss became foreign secretary, while Dominic Raab was moved from the Foreign Office to become deputy prime minister.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Well, if the claim Johnson made was false, which is what some claim, then he lied to Parliament
What's also worth noting is if there was no such thing as Parliamentary privilege, or Johnson made that claim outside Parliament, he'd almost certainly be sued for libel. This is why Raab and other associates interviewed about it had to be very careful what they said in TV interviews.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Now No 10 has spoken out and said Johnson has no intention of saying sorry, claiming he's got other stuff to be getting on with:




Does he think an apology takes more than a few minutes at most?
I would rather he thought for at least a minute before opening his mouth. Does he not remember the event of 15th October last and that it is up to all politicians (on both sides of the house - including backbenchers) to consider what they say? Does he not realise that there are nutters fruitcakes out there who will jump on every word and they are not confined to the other side of the pond.

As regards 'other stuff to be getting on with', I just wish there was more evidence than the weekly photo-ops. I thought Cameron spent too much time chillaxing, this bloke ...

Edit:
Meanwhile Johnson's playing the Cabinet reshuffle card again
Last one, five months ago. The sign of desperation.
 
Last edited:

MattRat

On Moderation
Joined
26 May 2021
Messages
2,128
Location
Liverpool
What's also worth noting is if there was no such thing as Parliamentary privilege, or Johnson made that claim outside Parliament, he'd almost certainly be sued for libel. This is why Raab and other associates interviewed about it had to be very careful what they said in TV interviews.
Yet another thing where it's one rule for us and another for them (at least while they are in Parliament).
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Meanwhile Johnson's playing the Cabinet reshuffle card again:




== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


What's also worth noting is if there was no such thing as Parliamentary privilege, or Johnson made that claim outside Parliament, he'd almost certainly be sued for libel. This is why Raab and other associates interviewed about it had to be very careful what they said in TV interviews.

Rees-Mogg tipped to move to a Brexit-related role? In other words, involved with international diplomacy?

That is a bit frightening. Is Johnson trying to put further distance between the UK and continental Europe, when the correct action is to build bridges and repair relations? The mind boggles.

It seems that more and more, the government is only interested in appealing to a certain section of the population.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
Well, if the claim Johnson made was false, which is what some claim, then he lied to Parliament

I think the problem with that reasoning is that it's not clear that the Savile claim was a direct lie. As far as I can tell, Boris's words were, "(This) former Director of Public Prosecutions ... spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out.".

Taken absolutely literally, the statement about Savile is true: Kier Starmer didn't prosecute Savile. There's an obvious smear because Bortis's statement implies that Starmer knowingly chose not to prosecute Savile, when as far as we can tell, the reality is that Starmer was never told about the investigation and so had no hand in that decision. To my mind, that makes the statement ethically wrong and misleading - and Boris should apologise for it. But that's not quite the same thing as being a direct lie. (Although I do wonder if the 'spent most of his time prosecuting journalists' bit could be shown to be factually directly false?)
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Rees-Mogg tipped to move to a Brexit-related role? In other words, involved with international diplomacy?

That is a bit frightening. Is Johnson trying to put further distance between the UK and continental Europe, when the correct action is to build bridges and repair relations? The mind boggles.

It seems that more and more, the government is only interested in appealing to a certain section of the population.
Mark Spencer moved into Rees Mogg's role. So he's been shifted aside for not keeping the troops in order. Chief Whip will be an interesting choice.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
Rees-Mogg now the Brexit opportunities minister. That sounds sinister to me....

Yes, the government should not be spending public money creating cabinet posts to promote its own past actions. It sounds almost a little Soviet to me. (before anyone says anything, I don't mean that this government is anything like as bad as that of the Soviet Union, but it does have echoes of a 'Ministry of (Mis)information' or similar...)
 
Last edited:

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Rees-Mogg now the Brexit opportunities minister. That sounds sinister to me....
He is actually a Minister of State (Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government efficiency) in the Cabinet Office. He will be a member of the Cabinet according to https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ministerial-appointments-february-2022.
I would say the second part is more sinister. 'Efficiency' normally means more expensive consultants trying to cut the budget by a few quid. If he really wanted to do the job he could look at scrapping the Boris Boat.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
4,874
Maybe not because of it, but there's no question Johnson's verbal attack influenced some of what the protestors said, as no-one was talking about Savile in relation to Starmer's DPP tenure until Johnson said what he said in Parliament when the Gray report summary was released. This is also what the media are focusing on the most.
Johnson didn't originate the claim about Starmer and Savile. https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/ is a fact check from 2020 about people linking the two on social media. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-britain-savile-idUSL1N2RP200 is another one from October last year.
I'm fairly sure the type of people willing to congregate to shout at politicians will be well versed in conspiracy theories without any help from the PM at the despatch box.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
16,035
Location
St Albans
Johnson didn't originate the claim about Starmer and Savile. https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/ is a fact check from 2020 about people linking the two on social media. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-britain-savile-idUSL1N2RP200 is another one from October last year.
I'm fairly sure the type of people willing to congregate to shout at politicians will be well versed in conspiracy theories without any help from the PM at the despatch box.
So the current PM makes a habit of repeating online conspiracy theories now.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
9,430
It's a non-job. There aren't any Brexit opportunities.

Mogg is the Minister for 'We cocked-up by implementing Brexit, but we must save face by continuing to pretend that it's a good idea and it will allow us all Opportunities to Make Lots of Money.' (Well maybe it will if you are a friend of the government, but probably no-one else..)
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
3,062
It's a non-job. There aren't any Brexit opportunities.
Well not for some,

"Mogg I've made you Brexit opportunities minister, basically I need you to make sure that all us rich people get the biggest benefit out of Brexit, which was why you supported it all along, I take it all your Brexit betting has paid off"

"Yes Mr. johnson Brexit has been great for me and a load of my rich mates, we treally screwed the people we tricked into voting to leave, now just oine thing from you Mr. Johnson, about employment regulations any chance of a chat about them, you do need all the support you can get at the moment"
 

davetheguard

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
1,939
So the member for the nineteenth century is now the minister for fantasy.

He's a prominent member of the Conservative's hard right "party within a party" the European Research Group (ERG). He's ideal for the fantasy post, he's been peddling the dream for years.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Mogg is the Minister for 'We cocked-up by implementing Brexit, but we must save face by continuing to pretend that it's a good idea and it will allow us all Opportunities to Make Lots of Money.' (Well maybe it will if you are a friend of the government, but probably no-one else..)
Maybe Johnson is setting him up to fail?

If I was Starmer, I wouldn't appoint a shadow. It would give the role a sense of authority it doesn't deserve.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
It's a non-job. There aren't any Brexit opportunities.

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Since we are no longer subject to EU law, there are going to be numerous ways we could change various regulations in ways that might assist UK businesses or provide improved environmental protection, for example. There are also opportunities for new trade agreements, including a couple that we have already signed.

You might well not like the 'opportunities' or you might think that they are inferior to the opportunities that staying in the EU would have presented, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,484
Location
Taunton or Kent
There are Brexit opportunities, but for Jacob Rees-Mogg that would involve him lowering taxes and regulations enough that he will decide to move his Dublin-based Somerset Capital Finance business back to the UK. He'll claim that Brexit is encouraging investment as a result, even though said taxes and regulations exit for a reason (see 2008 for what poor regulation can lead to), while he also shouldn't have ever moved his business in the first place if he believed in Britain as much as he says he does.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,143
Location
Elginshire
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Since we are no longer subject to EU law, there are going to be numerous ways we could change various regulations in ways that might assist UK businesses or provide improved environmental protection, for example. There are also opportunities for new trade agreements, including a couple that we have already signed.

You might well not like the 'opportunities' or you might think that they are inferior to the opportunities that staying in the EU would have presented, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Of course there are opportunities. Opportunities to scrap workers' rights, remove ourselves from the EHCR etc...
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,036
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. Since we are no longer subject to EU law, there are going to be numerous ways we could change various regulations in ways that might assist UK businesses or provide improved environmental protection, for example. There are also opportunities for new trade agreements, including a couple that we have already signed.

You might well not like the 'opportunities' or you might think that they are inferior to the opportunities that staying in the EU would have presented, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Whilst there will always be opportunities (weather inside or outside the EU), many firms will want to stick to EU rules so that they can carry on trading with it. Which limits what can/can't be done.

For instance you're not going to make as UK widget which is better than what you could sell in the EU if it isn't up to the standards required to sell it in the EU, unless you can make both in large enough volumes to make running two production lines worthwhile.

Yes you could make as cheaper UK version, but chances are so could someone elsewhere with lower staff costs, so that's not going to be all that helpful.

In reality, due to having a smaller workforce to do (almost) the same amount of work, chances are automation will be the name of the game for many.

Of course limiting the ease in which people can travel to the UK to work will limit the market size. For instance where is a business (assuming no competition) more likely to do well somewhere with a population of 6,500 or somewhere with a population of 9,000?

Assuming everything else is equal, the larger the population, as there's generally a larger number of people wanting to use your good/services.

Whilst increased wages through too few people able to do the work may bring benefits, that is likely to come at the cost of inflation (i.e. fewer builders means that they charge more for their work, which is good for their income, but not so good for those wanting work done as it'll cost then more).

That's fine if everyone increases their incomes at the same rate, the problem comes when that's uneven, especially if (say) the top 10% can increase their income faster than (say) the bottom 50%.

One inflation factor is those high paid white collar jobs who have seen their travel costs fall significantly due to WFH having a higher disposable income. They also will be protected, to some degree, from increased vehicle fuel costs. Which then reduces their personal inflation rate.

It's also likely they would have their house warm moist of the time anyway, especially if there's children and/or someone in the house for at least some of the time during the day anyway. Unlike those who are normally only keeping their house warm enough whilst they are home of an evening and can therefore have the temperature lower than a sitting at a desk temperature.

Of course such issues are unlikely to be able to be blamed on the PM, even though it's likely that those who are got the hardest by inflation are those who are retired and are on fixed incomes (unless they have a pension which grows with inflation) who (given typically older people voted for Brexit) are more likely to have voted for Brexit in the first place.

Whilst fuel cost increases aren't linked to Brexit, whilst they are what are making the headlines, an extra £1,000 in fuel costs (say £700 for gas/electric and £300 for petrol, which equates to a household doing 10,000 miles a year with the per mile cost increasingby 3p, which is fuel rising by about 30p per litre) for a household taking home (say) £40,000 is only going to be an increase of 2.5%. That leaves a lot of other factors for (say) a 5% inflation rate. Whilst food will play a part, again fuel cost increases are likely to only be a fairly small factor in the overall increases of food (depending on the food in question).

Clearly if the household income is £20,000 the same increase in energy costs would be a much higher factor, however likewise for a household with an income of £80,000 is likely that they increase would be lower (obviously depending on actual fuel usage, as it is could be that a smaller household income would mean a smaller home, which might mean a lot than average energy bill).

With my energy deal coming to an end I've realised that moving to the current price cap rate I'll only just move to the 2021 average (typically below the price cap) household bill (even though my energy costs are increasing by about one third) even though I live in a fairly normal 3 bed house built in the 1980's (i.e. has some retrofitted insulation, but no where near what well insulated new builds would have). Of course it also means that I don't have 20 halogen spotlights in the kitchen like a house built in the 2000's would have.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,484
Location
Taunton or Kent
According to a prominent Tory donor, things already have gone wrong for Johnson:


Boris Johnson's premiership is past the point of no return and he should resign, a financier who has given the Conservatives more than £3m says.
John Armitage told the BBC that challenges facing the West demanded "serious, engaged" politicians.
He has given the Tories more than £500,000 since Mr Johnson became PM but donated £12,500 last year to Labour.
A Conservative spokesperson said the government remained "fully focused on delivering for the British people".
On Tuesday, Mr Johnson carried out a mini-reshuffle of his cabinet, as he attempts to reconnect with MPs questioning his future following revelations of parties held in Downing Street during Covid-19 lockdowns.
Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and some of his own MPs are calling on him to resign.
But Mr Johnson has insisted he will change the culture within No 10 and focus on delivering the agenda that won him a landslide in the 2019 election.

Mr Armitage, co-founder of the hedge fund firm Egerton Capital, told the BBC's political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, he found the current political situation "tremendously upsetting".

Describing himself as a "middle-of-the-road conservative", Mr Armitage said he admired politicians on the left and right, and said current global challenges to the West required ''very serious, engaged politicians with a sense of purpose".
"Politicians should go into politics to do good for their country," Mr Armitage added. "That is the overwhelming reason to be in politics. I don't think it's about your own personal sense of getting to the top of a snakes-and-ladders game.
"And I feel that, if you lose moral authority, and if you do things which the average person - your mother, someone you try to explain to, someone who you admire - if you do something or say something, which on the front page of the Sunday Times looks terrible, and you do that consistently, and you betray a sense of not really caring, I think you should leave
"And I find the lack of honour inherent in modern politics, incredibly distressing."
Asked if Mr Johnson was "past the point of no return", he replied: "Well, personally yes."
Mr Armitage has given £3.1m to the Conservatives although he described himself as a "very low-profile person" who does not seek political influence.
He has also given much smaller amounts of money to Labour, made individual donations to the former Labour MP Frank Field, and contributed to the Remain campaign in 2016.

It has been a turbulent few months for Mr Johnson, whose government has been dogged by a series of political controversies.
The turmoil deepened at the end of January following the publication of a highly critical interim report by senior civil servant Sue Gray, who was investigating lockdown parties in Downing Street.
In long-awaited findings, Ms Gray said there were "failures of leadership and judgment" and a culture of "excessive" alcohol consumption within Downing Street.
Since then, several of Mr Johnson's senior advisers have resigned, leading to the appointment of a new communications director and chief of staff.
Tuesday's cabinet reshuffle marked the latest attempt to improve the operation in Downing Street and move on from weeks of political discord within his party.
But expressing concern about the standards of leadership in No 10, Mr Armitage said: "It's about more than like, 'if I'm failing, I've done a few things wrong, oh gosh, I'm going to change my advisers, God above!'.
"What about a sense of personal responsibility? You know, 'I'm going to change my chief of staff and it will all be fine.' Oh, really?"
Mr Armitage said he had told the Conservative Party he would not be giving them any more financial support as things stand, but he does plan to remain a member to retain his vote.
He said there were "competent" members of the current cabinet, but declined to name a potential successor to Mr Johnson.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
According to a prominent Tory donor, things already have gone wrong for Johnson:

He's not the first - John Caudwell (Phones 4 U) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59956939
A major Conservative donor has issued an ultimatum to Boris Johnson over revelations about lockdown parties in Downing Street.

John Caudwell said: "Sort it out, Boris, or step aside and let someone else sort it out so that the Tories aren't wiped out at the next election."

The Phones4U founder donated £500,000 to the Conservatives ahead of the 2019 general election.

He criticised the government's perceived "arrogance and hypocrisy".

Mr Caudwell was one of the Conservative Party's biggest individual donors at the last general election, and has previously given money to pro-Brexit Tory MP Sir Bill Cash.

These and similar business people are traditional 'died in the wool' Conservatives. Johnson is not.
 

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,484
Location
Taunton or Kent
He's not the first - John Caudwell (Phones 4 U) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59956939

These and similar business people are traditional 'died in the wool' Conservatives. Johnson is not.
Party donors stopping funding was what did it for May, and that was while she was immune from a leadership challenge. If enough donors pause funding, stating they will only resume it once Johnson resigns/leaves, then MPs will be forced into removing him or the party risks having insufficient funds to help campaign enough for their seats.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Party donors stopping funding was what did it for May, and that was while she was immune from a leadership challenge. If enough donors pause funding, stating they will only resume it once Johnson resigns/leaves, then MPs will be forced into removing him or the party risks having insufficient funds to help campaign enough for their seats.
You are right. Because of his majority, he can purge individual backbench MPs. Canvassers and donors are different. They are basically traditionalists, who hark back to the days of Margaret Thatcher, on the whole. Canvassers tend to be towards the upper end of the age spectrum, who will be affected by many of the impending prices rises. Many donors are big donors who the party relies on for its advertising campaigns. They don't have to do anything as dramatic as crossing the house or resigning. They just don't participate. May, at least, was a traditional Conservative at heart, but was promoted one step too far; Johnson has the fault, in many peoples eyes, of being enthusiastic about spending other people money - often on projects which appear to be ill-thought-out or for no earthly benefit. This is not the time for the latter.

With his row with significant Tory donor, Lord Ashcroft, ongoing the Tory Party Treasurer might start getting a teeny bit worried.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top