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

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would argue that the Tories have a special responsibility above all others to observe their own laws - no more so than figureheads Johnson and Sunak.

It is a responsibility for all politicians to abide by laws passed in the chambers of Parliament. I cannot recall instances since time immemorial where the party passing laws had this "special responsibility" to which you make reference, especially during the period of the Cromwellian Commonwealth.

 

[Yew]

I'm not super-rich (but am in the 40% bracket) but to me plenty of rich people have earnt it, e.g. by spending time, stress and personal financial risk on building up a business. So I think an 85% income tax rate is just "not on". I don't see an issue with a higher rate than 40%, maybe 50%, but not near-100%. What we need to concentrate on is removing the means to avoid it entirely. If they pay it, they pay huge amounts anyway, even at 20%.

To remind you, in todays money such a bracket would be on incomes over 200K.

 

[Cdd89]

As the party of government, and the party that actually implemented the long and severe lockdowns which have caused lasting economic damage for us all, and mental health issues for many, I would argue that the Tories have a special responsibility above all others to observe their own laws

Labour consistently called for longer, harder restrictions, and dismissed the harms thereof. While impossible to prove, I believe this encouraged the Tories to introduce stricter legislation than they otherwise would have. This is because of how divided the Tories otherwise were on the length and severity of any lockdown.

The 30 April 2021 event is a good example of this, since there was no good reason to be in semi-lockdown on that date based on vaccination progress and healthcare usage. Given that backbench pressure to fully ease restrictions was growing from February, I believe we wouldn’t have been, had Labour not been keeping up the pressure on “cautious easing”. To see confirmation that they didn’t really believe that is just as hypocritical (though in a funny way, it’s also slightly reassuring).

 

[Yew]

IMO the government could cut taxation for every person not just each vehicle simply by more than £30 pa just by cutting wastage and increasing efficiency.

That would require investment in improvements, the Conservative party doesn't do investment inn public services - it only runs them down in order to privatise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That would require investment in improvements, the Conservative party doesn't do investment inn public services - it only runs them down in order to privatise.

How on earth has the Mayor of Greater Manchester managed to get so much Government finance towards his dream of being Overlord of Public Transport in the Greater Manchester area. I see his latest vision is having control of the railway stations in Greater Manchester.

 

[brad465]

Labour consistently called for longer, harder restrictions, and dismissed the harms thereof. While impossible to prove, I believe this encouraged the Tories to introduce stricter legislation than they otherwise would have. This is because of how divided the Tories otherwise were on the length and severity of any lockdown.

The 30 April 2021 event is a good example of this, since there was no good reason to be in semi-lockdown on that date based on vaccination progress and healthcare usage. Given that backbench pressure to fully ease restrictions was growing from February, I believe we wouldn’t have been, had Labour not been keeping up the pressure on “cautious easing”. To see confirmation that they didn’t really believe that is just as hypocritical (though in a funny way, it’s also slightly reassuring).

Yes I do think that the existence of extreme legislation like all the covid restrictions meant that being law abiding was extremely difficult for even the most compliant individual. If it turns out this Labour gathering is in breach of rules at the time (although the police cleared Starmer back in February), I think it'll be more down to supporting such hard restrictions in the first place (live by the sword, die by the sword).

 

[edwin_m]

In other news, Minister without Portfolio* Rees-Mogg is claiming that the public will save £1bn by his delaying the imposition of Brexit import checks, which were only needed in the first place because of his own government's choices on Brexit.

*Minister without Portfolio because there are no "Brexit Opportunities", other than opportunities to look stupid or venal.

 

[MattRat]

I'm not sure what gathering you're referring to, but the one that some newspapers are reporting was on 30 April 2021, not 2 September.

Perhaps there were multiple events?

 

[nw1]

In other news, Minister without Portfolio* Rees-Mogg is claiming that the public will save £1bn by his delaying the imposition of Brexit import checks, which were only needed in the first place because of his own government's choices on Brexit.

*Minister without Portfolio because there are no "Brexit Opportunities", other than opportunities to look stupid or venal.

Ah, yes, Rees-Mogg, born 24 May 1869. I presume there's a typo on the quoted date of birth on Wikipedia.

There's something a bit sinister, almost Soviet, about the title "Minister for Brexit Opportunities".

Personally I'd like to see a "Minister for Admitting Brexit was a Failure and Seeking to Limit the Damage"

 

[Acfb]

Neil Parish looks likely to resign this afternoon. This looks like another North Shropshire to me. Rural Devon has been moving away from the Lib Dems for years but I think they should achieve it in the circumstances of a by election as they almost won it in 1997.

So we could see the Tories lose two by elections at roughly the same time.

 

[nw1]

Neil Parish looks likely to resign this afternoon. This looks like another North Shropshire to me. Rural Devon has been moving away from the Lib Dems for years but I think they should achieve it in the circumstances of a by election as they almost won it in 1997.

So we could see the Tories lose two by elections at roughly the same time.

Ah, so presumably we're going to get two new Crown Stewards and Bailiffs appointed today. I hope they enjoy their new role and Crown Steward and Bailiff Paterson isn't too upset at losing the job.

 

[brad465]

Neil Parish MP: I'm resigning after porn moment of madness

Neil Parish admits watching pornography in the House of Commons and tells the BBC he was stupid.

www.bbc.co.uk

"He said the first time was accidental after looking at tractors, but the second time was deliberate."

Uncovered what Neil Parish was looking at in the Commons:

 

[birchesgreen]

No when he said tractors he meant Class 37s, now as we all know, that is extreme pornography.

 

[jon0844]

In other news, Minister without Portfolio* Rees-Mogg is claiming that the public will save £1bn by his delaying the imposition of Brexit import checks, which were only needed in the first place because of his own government's choices on Brexit.

*Minister without Portfolio because there are no "Brexit Opportunities", other than opportunities to look stupid or venal.

Fantastic deal for Brexiteers and the British businesses that backed it! The EU can now send anything here, but we still have the additional paperwork and hassle of getting our goods to the EU.

Well done Jacob!!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2022 ==

Neil Parish MP: I'm resigning after porn moment of madness

Neil Parish admits watching pornography in the House of Commons and tells the BBC he was stupid.

www.bbc.co.uk

Uncovered what Neil Parish was looking at in the Commons:

View attachment 113825

Did anyone notice that he was interviewed on GB News about an MP watching pornography before it was known who it was? I mean, he literally answered questions about this unknown person when that person was him!

 

[Busaholic]

Neil Parish MP: I'm resigning after porn moment of madness

Neil Parish admits watching pornography in the House of Commons and tells the BBC he was stupid.

www.bbc.co.uk

Uncovered what Neil Parish was looking at in the Commons:

View attachment 113825

I could swear it was going to be 'Pulling Power' he was browsing.

 

[DelayRepay]

Mr Parish said: "The situation was that funnily enough, it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit, which I shouldn't have done."

I always knew there'd be an innocent explanation. People are far too quick to judge these days.

 

[jfollows]

At least it only took four days for Neil Parish to realise and accept that he'd done something wrong, probably broken the law, and brought his profession and his party into disrepute. Four days too long, of course. But compared to 40 days, 400 days, it seems like 4000 days for his party leader not to do this ...... I actually think he comes out of this relatively well, he's obviously a complete twit and he's done things no sensible person would do, but after a wodge of bluster and nonsense he's decided to be truthful. Ah, that's the problem, that's a concept that Boris has never understood of course.

As Steve Baker said, we should have it in us to forgive stupid people who make mistakes and are genuinely sorry for it. Not that he should keep his job, mind you, that would be too much.

 

[AlterEgo]

Mr Parish said: "The situation was that funnily enough, it was tractors I was looking at. I did get into another website that had a very similar name and I watched it for a bit, which I shouldn't have done."

I always knew there'd be an innocent explanation. People are far too quick to judge these days.

What tractor website has a similar name to a porno site??

 

[jfollows]

I do remember when BJ’s Wholesale Club opened a new outlet in Raleigh, NC and some of my colleagues got to places they shouldn’t have done when they tried to look it up at work.

 

[Busaholic]

At least it only took four days for Neil Parish to realise and accept that he'd done something wrong, probably broken the law, and brought his profession and his party into disrepute. Four days too long, of course. But compared to 40 days, 400 days, it seems like 4000 days for his party leader not to do this ...... I actually think he comes out of this relatively well, he's obviously a complete twit and he's done things no sensible person would do, but after a wodge of bluster and nonsense he's decided to be truthful. Ah, that's the problem, that's a concept that Boris has never understood of course.

As Steve Baker said, we should have it in us to forgive stupid people who make mistakes and are genuinely sorry for it. Not that he should keep his job, mind you, that would be too much.

I agree with most of that. How different from his near neighbour. the MP for Somerton and Frome, David Warburton, who has (allegedly) committed far worse 'crimes' imo but is shamelessly now promoting himself as the 'independent' MP for those unlucky places. His current photo makes him look like a modern-day Alan B'stard, which is apposite. Why does Inspector Knacker not knock on his door for a chat? If I was a voter in his constituency I'd certainly be posing that question. And then we have 'Sir' Geoffrey Cox, who occasionally blusters for West Devon when he can be bothered to drag his porcine figure back from the British Virgin Islands, having earned his latest 'wedge' from that snow white administration!

 

[david1212]

At least it only took four days for Neil Parish to realise and accept that he'd done something wrong, probably broken the law, and brought his profession and his party into disrepute. Four days too long, of course. But compared to 40 days, 400 days, it seems like 4000 days for his party leader not to do this ...... I actually think he comes out of this relatively well, he's obviously a complete twit and he's done things no sensible person would do, but after a wodge of bluster and nonsense he's decided to be truthful. Ah, that's the problem, that's a concept that Boris has never understood of course.
...

More fundamental is why he was watching or indeed doing anything anything on his phone totally irrelevant to whatever was being ' discussed ' at the time, his role as Chairman of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee or his local constituency?

 

[Gloster]

I suspect that there is somebody awake in the Conservative Party, possibly Chief Whip Chris Heaton-Harris, who realises that once a major embarrassment turns up, it is probably best to hold up your hands, admit it and get it over with. Leaving things to rumble on with an MP or PM continuing to dig themselves deeper and deeper into the ordure does the party no good. However, it usually helps to provide a sweetener when asking an MP to follow their conscience (note to MPs: look the word up), so I wouldn’t be surprised if Parish quietly reappears in a lucrative job in a quango. Something dealing with ex-tractor fans perhaps?

 

[317 forever]

Neil Parish looks likely to resign this afternoon. This looks like another North Shropshire to me. Rural Devon has been moving away from the Lib Dems for years but I think they should achieve it in the circumstances of a by election as they almost won it in 1997.

So we could see the Tories lose two by elections at roughly the same time.

With the 2019 result having been 60% for him and a divided opposition, it would be tough for another party to win. Still, with sufficient tactical voting and say a 15% swing it could still happen.

https://electionresults.parliament.uk/election/2019-12-12/Results/Location/Constituency/Tiverton%20and%20Honiton/

 

[brad465]

Oliver Dowden is now trying to sling mud at a believed Labour and Lib Dem electoral pact:

https://twitter.com/OliverDowden/status/1520515882199486465

The secret Labour/Lib Dem elections pact has been revealed. Read my letter and the questions that Sir Keir Starmer must answer

Two things come to mind here: firstly, does Starmer need to answer to this? Dowden sounds like such a pact is illegal and/or in breach of Parliamentary standards, which is not the case. Secondly and perhaps even more importantly, whatever one thinks of electoral pacts, the Tories are in no position to morally criticise others potentially arranging them when they got the Brexit Party to stand down candidates in all Tory held seats in 2019, which is a far more formal pact than anything opposition parties might be planning.

 

[Scotrail12]

What sort of morons do we have in Westminster? I'm sorry but no person with a working brain would watch indecent material in public, let alone their workplace, let alone the House of Commons. Imagine that being your legacy.

It is crazy to me that Boris and his MPs have survived so many incidents. I don't support Labour/SNP/Lib Dems either but the current Tories are a laughing stock. It's like they'll never go away.

 

[Busaholic]

Oliver Dowden is now trying to sling mud at a believed Labour and Lib Dem electoral pact:

https://twitter.com/OliverDowden/status/1520515882199486465

Two things come to mind here: firstly, does Starmer need to answer to this? Dowden sounds like such a pact is illegal and/or in breach of Parliamentary standards, which is not the case. Secondly and perhaps even more importantly, whatever one thinks of electoral pacts, the Tories are in no position to morally criticise others potentially arranging them when they got the Brexit Party to stand down candidates in all Tory held seats in 2019, which is a far more formal pact than anything opposition parties might be planning.

Dowden spouts rubbish out of every orifice, and always has done. If I thought that my vote for the LibDems in 2010 would only help push Cameron's mob into government, I certainly wouldn't have put a cross there.

 

[birchesgreen]

What sort of morons do we have in Westminster? I'm sorry but no person with a working brain would watch indecent material in public, let alone their workplace, let alone the House of Commons. Imagine that being your legacy.

It is crazy to me that Boris and his MPs have survived so many incidents. I don't support Labour/SNP/Lib Dems either but the current Tories are a laughing stock. It's like they'll never go away.

Sadly too many MPs (in both main parties*) are wastes of space. In most constituencies it is a job for life once you become the MP and selection is not exactly rigorous.

* Libs and smaller parties potentially could too but its far less easy to hide in a small party

 

[The Ham]

More fundamental is why he was watching or indeed doing anything anything on his phone totally irrelevant to whatever was being ' discussed ' at the time, his role as Chairman of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee or his local constituency?

The question I have is "what internet connection was be using?"

If Wifi, then why does the Houses of Parliament not have filters to stop access to unethical material (such as Porn), most work places would. However, even if they don't given that it's possible for you to be found out then if you accidentally went to the wrong site the thing to do is instantly close the site and go and confess that it was an error.

In this case such a confession would have been at most 5 minutes after the story broke, if not before. Yes it would be embarrassing, however most people would accept an error.

As such this would be the timeline; wrong site opened and closed within (say) 20 seconds (i.e. long enough for someone else to observe the site was open), then email sent to chief whip explaining that a site was visited in error, news story breaks, chief whip asked for comment, comment is "the MP in question has already contacted me, explained that they opened a similar sounding site to the one they ment to visit and closed it as soon as they noticed their error, as such we don't believe that further action against the individual is required at this time", a few people get upset but far far fewer than is currently the case, chief whip confirms that the site has been added to the banned list of sites able to be visited on the Houses of Parliament WiFi.

Now I know that generic filters can be a bit over enthusiastic (for instance our home broadband provider makes it hard to even visit sites selling underware, much to my wife's frustration when looking to buy new underware), however a workplace with an IT department should be able to better manage such issues (and probably isn't trying to set the limit for children). As such it should be fairly easy to allow sites, so no work is impacted, but also stop the most obviously pornographic sites from being accessed by accident.

 

[duncanp]

The question I have is "what internet connection was be using?"

If Wifi, then why does the Houses of Parliament not have filters to stop access to unethical material (such as Porn), most work places would. However, even if they don't given that it's possible for you to be found out then if you accidentally went to the wrong site the thing to do is instantly close the site and go and confess that it was an error.

In this case such a confession would have been at most 5 minutes after the story broke, if not before. Yes it would be embarrassing, however most people would accept an error.

As such this would be the timeline; wrong site opened and closed within (say) 20 seconds (i.e. long enough for someone else to observe the site was open), then email sent to chief whip explaining that a site was visited in error, news story breaks, chief whip asked for comment, comment is "the MP in question has already contacted me, explained that they opened a similar sounding site to the one they ment to visit and closed it as soon as they noticed their error, as such we don't believe that further action against the individual is required at this time", a few people get upset but far far fewer than is currently the case, chief whip confirms that the site has been added to the banned list of sites able to be visited on the Houses of Parliament WiFi.

Now I know that generic filters can be a bit over enthusiastic (for instance our home broadband provider makes it hard to even visit sites selling underware, much to my wife's frustration when looking to buy new underware), however a workplace with an IT department should be able to better manage such issues (and probably isn't trying to set the limit for children). As such it should be fairly easy to allow sites, so no work is impacted, but also stop the most obviously pornographic sites from being accessed by accident.

I think all phones and devices should be switched off when an MP is in the House of Commons chamber.

They are there to listen and take part in the debates, and you can't do that if you are busy looking at unrelated matters on your phone.

Unless you take the view that some MPs are there just to make up the numbers, and vote when and how they are told to do so ny the party whips.

But yes, there is a world of difference between accidentally opening a porn site and deliberately sitting there looking at it for several minutes.

 

[jfollows]

What sort of morons do we have in Westminster? I'm sorry but no person with a working brain would watch indecent material in public, let alone their workplace, let alone the House of Commons. Imagine that being your legacy.

You are absolutely right, and the thing is that neither you nor I nor the vast majority of contributors to this forum would ever do this.
And that's telling, in that the House of Commons is populated by people who set our laws, tell us in patronising ways what's best for us, and then don't think that any of this applies to them. It stinks, but I think the hypocrisy is going to tell because the electorate won't put up with it. It'll be interesting to see next week's results, to put it mildly, but although I try and vote on "local" issues in local elections (and I'm not voting next week as it happens) the candidates are from national parties whose leaders - some of them - encourage this sort of behaviour by their leadership and example. Not that I'm voting, and not that I'd have voted Conservative (the last Conservative administration in Cheshire East was appalling) anyway, but the question I ask myself is that if I had been tempted, would I now not?
All I know is that I knew the rules when I worked - maybe the fact that MPs aren't employed and can't be sacked plays into this, but ultimately they have to answer to the electorate.