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

[AM9]

Lucky you, with savings to invest in insulation, and your own house that you can choose to insulate.

Well he did say "those that can afford to pay more should" which is how support for those that can't should be funded.
As far as insulation goes, those that can afford it are often the most profligate with energy, so overall the incentive not to waste a limited resource is a good thing. That also undermines the Government's mealy mouthed rhetoric on improving the nation's housing for what it is, - yet another policy (or lack of one) that unfairly discriminates against those less likely to vote for them. It would probably embarrass it to take the matter seriously, which would benefit the economy, the nation's health and at least slow down this gallop towards ever increasing inequality.

 

[Gloster]

We don’t really know how much and how well he has done when dealing with the war in Ukraine. He may have made a visit to Kyiv, no doubt very welcome and heartening to the Ukrainians, but it is unclear if there was much in the way of practical support decided. And there seems to have been an effort in some quarters to suggest that only he was so heroic as to travel to the war zone. (Kyiv is, admittedly, more of a front line than Brize Norton.) Several others had been to the city before him.

He attended the NATO Heads of State meeting, but in the photo he stood at the front with his jacket unbuttoned, his tie a bit askew and looking off to one side as though he had spotted a bit of totty. And afterwards he was standing there on his own as Johnny-no-mates. I think this just shows how Britain’s ‘world status’ is just a figment of politicians’ imagination.

Yes, there have been weapons sent to Ukraine, but that will have been organised by the Ministry of Defence, although he has the ultimate responsibility for the decision. But he also has the ultimate responsibility for the appalling mess with visas.

We haven’t yet seen whether he is dealing in a proper manner with existing and potential problems, or whether he hasn’t yet faced any that need difficult decisions. I haven’t actually said that he hasn’t made a mistake yet, but to my mind the word yet is probably the appropriate one.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think he could have handled Ukraine a lot worse, but in real terms this means nothing as it doesn't change the above, we are an international laughing stock - not only was a PM able to think they could break their own laws but they did and look to be getting away with it. Makes us all look good

Really? Could you clarify which countries see us as an international laughing stock? I assume you're not referring to France, where disillusionment of mainstream politics is such that a far right candidate now looks like she has at least a passing chance of being elected president. You're probably also not thinking of Germany, which appears to have had the embarrassment of discovering that not only has their energy policy left them all but completely dependent on Russia but that their military is so run down that they basically have hardly any weapons they can send to Ukraine. I'm guessing you're also not referring to the USA, where their previous president all but tried to launch an insurrection to subvert the election that he was defeated in, and whose successor lead their humiliation in Afghanistan and has subsequently made repeated diplomatic faux-pas in various speeches. You're probably also not thinking about Ukraine, where in Johnson's recent visit, it was very clear they think of the UK PM as something like a hero for the support he's given them, and where there are various reports of troops singing the *British* national anthem.

So where exactly is Britain the international laughing stock?

Or is that just another of these tropes that people who dislike the UK Government like to repeat, but which has no basis in reality?

 

[dakta]

It's a forum where people express opinion, so you're going to have to handle a bit of that

I don't know of any authority I can refer to that sets the official status of when something becomes a laughing stock, but on the other hand, however as a laughing stock is 'a person subjected to general mockery or ridicule' I don't think it is beyond reasonable to hold an opinion we fit the bill. I actually voted tory in the past so I have personally had to suffer quite the backlash from colleagues and friends whenever it gets raised (I was surprised how opinionated they could be) , so to keep this short - my above assessment is based on personal opinion and a reasonable assessment of our current PM breaking the law, which was drafted under his tenure which DOES make us look a laughing stock (IMO) especially when we're trying to project a bit of power in a world dealing with 2 major crises (covid and Ukraine).

You're not going to like this but I've seen a few events where countries have fit the bill of being a laughing stock, I could never pin it down to a country per se, I don't think it was ever the case that 'germany says xxx is a laughing stock' - it was much easier than that, just assess the mood on facebook.

Another way to try and sort this would be for me to adopt the opposite stance and try my best to disprove my own point but I fear I wouldn't have a lot to work with in terms of current affairs.

You don't have to agree with my view but even with your post I do think the PM getting a fine for not following his own rules does make us look a laughing stock, I can't see any grounds for it not doing so and you might just have to lump that.

 

[Yew]

Well he did say "those that can afford to pay more should" which is how support for those that can't should be funded.
As far as insulation goes, those that can afford it are often the most profligate with energy, so overall the incentive not to waste a limited resource is a good thing. That also undermines the Government's mealy mouthed rhetoric on improving the nation's housing for what it is, - yet another policy (or lack of one) that unfairly discriminates against those less likely to vote for them. It would probably embarrass it to take the matter seriously, which would benefit the economy, the nation's health and at least slow down this gallop towards ever increasing inequality.

Being able to afford to pay more in energy does not mean one is able to pay the upfront costs of insulation, or are allowed to do it due to renting.

 

[brad465]

So where exactly is Britain the international laughing stock?

Not honouring a treaty we happily signed in the form of the Northern Ireland Protocol. Whether or not we're an international laughing stock because of this one can debate, but what's clear is this is the lack of checks in accordance with the agreement, and the constant rhetoric trying to undermine it that began relatively soon after signing it, is not a good look nor good behaviour on the international stage.

 

[AM9]

Being able to afford to pay more in energy does not mean one is able to pay the upfront costs of insulation, or are allowed to do it due to renting.

I didn't imply that it did, but for many who do have the option, a higher price for the energy is more likely to encourage them to do the right thing and invest in insulation that will over time* pay for itself in reduced energy bill. Fot those who cannot upgrade their insulation, I believe there will eventually be legislation to mandate that the energy rating of rented properties meets more acceptable levels. I somehow don't see this Government addressing that though.
* Clearly, different levels of insulation improvement will lead to different payback periods, but with energy in Jan 2023 probably costing about twice the cost that it was in Jan 2022, all insulation payback periods are going to be shorter than would have been the case 5 years ago.

 

[DarloRich]

In the spirit of act in haste repent at leisure I have taken some time to reconsider my starting position with regard to Johnson. I was very angry last night that he couldn't be bothered to follow the rules he drafted and imposed on us all.

This morning I am much calmer. I think, perhaps even more, he should go. If he wont go he should be removed by Tory MP's and replaced with someone of integrity and in possession of moral compass.

If you don't think he should go I suggest taking a long hard look in the mirror and wondering why you are supporting someone who doesn't give a stuff about you. We used to be a country where morality, legality, decency and honour mattered. These were things the Tory party stood for in the past. It is clear they no longer do. It still matters to me. Why doesn't it matter to you?

 

[bspahh]

I wrote a letter to my MP using https://www.theyworkforyou.com/

 

[nlogax]

No-one here actually believed he'd go, right?

 

[dgl]

No-one here actually believed he'd go, right?

To the pub, yes. Quit on his own terms?, no

 

[Cdd89]

We used to be a country where morality, legality, decency and honour mattered. These were things the Tory party stood for in the past. It is clear they no longer do. It still matters to me. Why doesn't it matter to you?

Because he hasn’t done anything immoral; I find this a bit overwrought to be honest. As far as I can tell, this is a discussion solely over the principle.

(I agree that the principle is bad, and that the responsibility for signing into existence a law that was broader than he realised lies with him!)

 

[Darandio]

Because he hasn’t done anything immoral; I find this a bit overwrought to be honest. As far as I can tell, this is a discussion solely over the principle.

(I agree that the principle is bad, and that the responsibility for signing into existence a law that was broader than he realised lies with him!)

Lying isn't immoral these days?

 

[Cdd89]

Lying isn't immoral these days?

I think he was telling the truth when he said he didn’t think he’d broken the law. Supporting evidence: this article published the day after the party in question, and referenced in my post upthread.

 

[DarloRich]

I think he was telling the truth when he said he didn’t think he’d broken the law.

are you serious? We all know that it was illegal to hold a social gathering at this time. The length or purpose of the gathering is immaterial. The cake is immaterial. The gathering was illegal. The singing was illegal. He knew that and we knew that. Why? Because he went on the TV and told us it was illegal!

PS - that seems fairly immoral to me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Apr 2022 ==

No-one here actually believed he'd go, right?

Not at all - but that doesn't negate the fact that he SHOULD

 

[Cdd89]

The gathering was illegal. The singing was illegal. He knew that and we knew that. Why? Because he went on the TV and told us it was illegal!

If he knew it was illegal, why would he have casually briefed the Times about the gathering the day afterwards?

are you serious?

Please don’t think I’m letting him off. I actually think it’s worse that he signed into existence legislation that affected all our lives to an unprecedented degree, without understanding its implications.

 

[DarloRich]

If he knew it was illegal, why would he have casually briefed the Times about the gathering the day afterwards?

because he doesn't care. He thinks the rules don't apply to him

I actually think it’s worse that he signed legislation that affected all our lives to an unprecedented degree, without understanding its implications.

He knew what it said and he knew what it meant. He didn't care. Rules are for the little people.

 

[nlogax]

Not at all - but that doesn't negate the fact that he SHOULD

While that's true we're now way beyond the tradition of leaders and politicians feeling obliged to do the proper thing in the light of wrongdoing. Actions no longer have the consequences of old. 2016 saw to that.

 

[DarloRich]

While that's true we're now way beyond the tradition of leaders and politicians feeling obliged to do the proper thing in the light of wrongdoing. Actions no longer have the consequences of old. 2016 saw to that.

but that doesn't negate the fact that they SHOULD

 

[SuspectUsual]

If he knew it was illegal, why would he have casually briefed the Times about the gathering the day afterwards?

Because Johnson is two things - slapdash, and absolutely certain in his belief that he'll come through unscathed. Its how he's lived his entire life

 

[GusB]

Yes we're providing lethal aid, you don't need to be all that much of a leader for that policy to continue.

Indeed. Anything that helps our economy, no matter how many people it kills, is good. No leader will do anything to disrupt the arms supply, regardless of the outcome.

Whilst we shouldn't be putting out "dig for victory" posters there should be things in place to start the process of generating more food to help mitigate the losses.

Now is the best time to be putting out "dig for victory" posters - there's no point in putting them out in November.

Good comment. Theresa May was handed a poison chalice when she took office, she never stood a chance with Brexit hanging over her every move. She may not have universal popularity, but right now any faults she has are not looking too serious in comparison with those of everyone who was prepared to break the very laws they made. Boris and many others have blatantly waved two fingers at the law, I'd like to think May at least has more integrity than that, and who knows, she may have done a better job over Ukraine too ...

This is the home secretary who presided over the "IMMIGRANTS GO HOME" van campaign. Give the other one a tug - it may jingle pleasantly.

Really? Could you clarify which countries see us as an international laughing stock? I assume you're not referring to France, where disillusionment of mainstream politics is such that a far right candidate now looks like she has at least a passing chance of being elected president. You're probably also not thinking of Germany, which appears to have had the embarrassment of discovering that not only has their energy policy left them all but completely dependent on Russia but that their military is so run down that they basically have hardly any weapons they can send to Ukraine. I'm guessing you're also not referring to the USA, where their previous president all but tried to launch an insurrection to subvert the election that he was defeated in, and whose successor lead their humiliation in Afghanistan and has subsequently made repeated diplomatic faux-pas in various speeches. You're probably also not thinking about Ukraine, where in Johnson's recent visit, it was very clear they think of the UK PM as something like a hero for the support he's given them, and where there are various reports of troops singing the *British* national anthem.

Oh, come on. Brexit and all that - there are a few countries that are laughing at us. We have Boris Johnson as the head of government; if that's not a laughing matter, it should be. We criticised the US for electing the idiotic lump that is Donald Trump, but it's okay for the utter moron Johnson to be our prime minister.

Because he hasn’t done anything immoral; I find this a bit overwrought to be honest. As far as I can tell, this is a discussion solely over the principle.

I was brought up to believe that lying was fairly immoral. Where were you educated?

 

[Cdd89]

because he doesn't care. He thinks the rules don't apply to him

Because Johnson is two things - slapdash, and absolutely certain in his belief that he'll come through unscathed

This doesn’t cut it for me as an explanation for why he — along with his political advisers and strategists — would tell the press the very next day about a gathering known then to be illegal.

Far more likely that he didn’t even consider that that it was illegal; and given the lack of furore at the time, nor did most people.

I was brought up to believe that lying was fairly immoral. Where were you educated?

For the above reason, I am not convinced he lied. To accuse him of lying suggests that one is not being entirely detached in viewing this case in isolation.

I think it’s more constructive to try to view the situation impartially and focus on the real transgression — signing laws into existence that were broader than intended.

 

[birchesgreen]

This is the home secretary who presided over the "IMMIGRANTS GO HOME" van campaign. Give the other one a tug - it may jingle pleasantly.

Yes Johnson's greatest achievement has been to make May seem not that bad, we need to remember she was pretty awful too.

 

[DarloRich]

This doesn’t cut it for me as an explanation for why he — along with his political advisers and strategists — would tell the press the very next day about a gathering known then to be illegal.

I maintain they simply didn't think the rules applied to them. You may be prepared to offer them the benefit of the doubt. I am not willing ( or naïve enough )to do so.

I think it’s more constructive to try to view the situation impartially and focus on the real transgression — signing laws into existence that were broader than intended.

With respect that is not the real transgression. The real transgression is the breaking of the law. The law at the time was clear. We were not permitted to meet. We all understood the law. Why? Because Johnson went on TV and told us what it said. In any event it was hardly a complex piece of legal drafting! We all managed to follow that. He didn't. That's the transgression ffs. Why are you happy that these people are laughing at you and your sacrifice?

 

[Cdd89]

I maintain they simply didn't think the rules applied to them. You may be prepared to offer them the benefit of the doubt

It’s not giving them the benefit of the doubt; it’s the most rational explanation.

We were not permitted to meet. We all understood the law. Why? Because Johnson went on TV and told us what it said. In any event it was hardly a complex piece of legal drafting!

You are oversimplifying the law here. What Boris ‘said on TV’ was not consistent with the law (remember “exercise once per day”; to give the most well known example?). It was so ‘simple’ that it required legal experts like Adam Wagner to give multiple hour long videos explaining it. The international quarantine regulations alone were highly technical and almost 100 pages long. I’m not convinced Boris ever read it. From your descriptions above, I’m not sure you have either. Not that you’re expected to; but Boris is. That is the real transgression.

Why are you happy that these people are laughing at you and your sacrifice?

You dramatically overestimate my level of ‘sacrifice’. Most people I know were being pretty flexible with the law by mid-June.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because he hasn’t done anything immoral; I find this a bit overwrought to be honest. As far as I can tell, this is a discussion solely over the principle.

(I agree that the principle is bad, and that the responsibility for signing into existence a law that was broader than he realised lies with him!)

Attending a party is not immoral.

It is immoral to break laws you made yourself while applauding people who did abide by said law.

 

[Cdd89]

It is immoral to break laws you made yourself while applauding people who did abide by said law.

(Im)morality requires intent. In the case of this party, I don’t believe that intent is made out; indeed there is significant evidence to suggest that it is not.

 

[GusB]

For the above reason, I am not convinced he lied. To accuse him of lying suggests that one is not being entirely detached in viewing this case in isolation.

I think it’s more constructive to try to view the situation impartially and focus on the real transgression — signing laws into existence that were broader than intended.

Are you being serious? He broke the very laws that his government set, which prevented many people from seeing loved ones. While I didn't lose anyone during the pandemic, I lost two of the most important people in my life (parents) in the few months before.

I was able to spend Christmas with my brother and his family before we were all locked down, but after the restrictions were imposed I was more or less imprisoned with very little contact with anyone. My usual social outlet (my local) was unavailable, and all I was left with was trips to the local shop which I had to think very hard about (is it really essential?). Had I been able to do everyday things, dealing with that grief might have been a bit more bearable, but it was absolutely horrendous.

Meanwhile, Bojo and co were larging it up at number ten, and when challenged they came out with stuff like "all regulations were followed and it wasn't a party anyway", when clearly there were parties and the rules weren't being followed. They wouldn't have been fined otherwise!

Not only did he lie - he lied to parliament. We're not talking about a slightly naughty back-bencher here - he is the Prime Minister. That is immoral.

 

[DarloRich]

You are oversimplifying the law here. What Boris ‘said on TV’ was not consistent with the law (remember “exercise once per day”; to give the most well known example?). It was so ‘simple’ that it required legal experts like Adam Wagner to give multiple hour long videos explaining it. The international quarantine regulations alone were highly technical and almost 100 pages long. I’m not convinced Boris ever read it. From your descriptions above, I’m not sure you have either. Not that you’re expected to; but Boris is. That is the real transgression.

The law was clear. He made it. He broke it. His ignorance of that law is no defence. This is the link to the legislation, which I have read; thanks. It doesn't seem very complicated to me https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/7/2020-06-19

Legislation: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020

(1) During the emergency period, unless paragraph (2) applies, no person may participate in a gathering which takes place in a public or private place

(a)outdoors, and consists of more than six persons, or
(b)indoors, and consists of two or more persons.
(2) This paragraph applies where—

(a)all the persons in the gathering are members of the same household [F2or members of two households which are linked households in relation to each other];
(b)the person is attending a funeral, as—
(i)a member of the deceased person’s household,
(ii)a close family member of the deceased person, or
(iii)if no-one within paragraph (i) or (ii) is attending, a friend of the deceased person;
(c)the person concerned is an elite athlete, the coach of an elite athlete, or (in the case of an elite athlete under the age of 18), the parent of an elite athlete, and the gathering is necessary for training or competition

(d)the gathering is reasonably necessary—

(i)for work purposes, or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services;
........
3) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)there is a gathering when two or more people are present together in the same place in order to engage in any form of social interaction with each other, or to undertake any other activity with each other;

His only possible defence is that this gathering was reasonably necessary for work purposes, or for the provision of voluntary or charitable services;

It’s not giving them the benefit of the doubt;

You are but that is your business. I wont do that.

 

[Cdd89]

I was able to spend Christmas with my brother and his family before we were all locked down, but after the restrictions were imposed I was more or less imprisoned with very little contact with anyone. My usual social outlet (my local) was unavailable, and all I was left with was trips to the local shop which I had to think about very hard about (is it really essential?). Had I been able to do everyday things, dealing with that grief might have been a bit more bearable, but it was absolutely horrendous.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for what you describe above. (Incidentally, in relation to other parties, there may be a case that he knowingly broke the law. I am solely focussed on the party for which he has been fined.)

That’s why you should consider the implications of saying you’re sure he lied (i.e. he knowingly broke the law on this occasion), when the evidence pretty clearly points the other way. By saying this, you’re letting him off the likely fact that he enacted unprecedented laws he hadn’t even read or understood. I consider that an even worse offence than lying.

You are but that is your business. I wont do that.

As I’ve said upthread, please don’t think I’m letting him off the hook. I want him gone.

I am holding him to a higher standard than you are. Politicians lie all the time (sadly). They don’t restrict basic freedoms and destroy mental health (without even reading the laws they’re signing) all the time. Believe me, I’m holding him to account for the worse offence here.