Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[MikeWM]

It’s not undemocratic. If Johnson wasn’t such a coward then the final say on the 90 days would have been with the full House of Commons, i.e. by all our elected representatives. How this that undemocratic?

Because the other MPs in the House of Commons weren't chosen by the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip to represent them. The other MPs have no right to tell those constituents that they cannot be represented for a whole 90 days by the person they chose.

There have to be limits on what a majority of the House of Commons is allowed to do. Else eg. any party with a majority could bar minority parties from participating in debates, or voting. It has to be a basic principle that MPs, even with a majority, cannot restrict the ability of other MPs to perform the task of representing the people who sent them there. The only thing they should be able to do in extremis is to refer the matter back to the relevant electorate.

 

[Purple Train]

If that was their intent, why didn't they impose a 10-day suspension, which would have been sufficient to trigger a recall petition?

Though even then, I think it would be hugely preferable to change the act that allows for such petitions to apply *whenever* an MP is censured by a vote in Parliament, and remove the deeply undemocratic suspension process altogether.

Deeply undemocratic? Seems like I have a neighbour up here in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

A censure by the House of Commons can come from a huge number of misdemeanours, some serious (like those committed by Johnson and (significantly more seriously) Keith Vaz), some significantly closer to trivial. As 43096 said, it's voted on by Parliament, so, unless you want to argue that Parliament is undemocratic, that's a complete fallacy.

Also, where should we draw the line? Is it "deeply undemocratic" that Dennis Skinner was forced to withdraw for the day for breaking Parliament's rules by referring to Mr Cameron as "dodgy Dave"? Is it "deeply undemocratic" that Paul Bristow was forced to withdraw for the day for breaking Parliament's rules by repeatedly heckling Sir Keir Starmer even when asked not to do so (officially "disorderly conduct", I believe)?

Parliament has rules. Should MPs be punished for breaking them?

If you propose the upper limit to be 10 days' suspension, surely this may just encourage flagrant rule-breaking like Johnson's disgraceful behaviour in the wake of the inquiry, as they cannot be punished further?

Because the other MPs in the House of Commons weren't chosen by the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip to represent them. The other MPs have no right to tell those constituents that they cannot be represented for a whole 90 days by the person they chose.

So how do you propose rule-breaking MPs should be punished? After all, some line must be drawn between, say, unparliamentary language and the Keith Vaz scandal.

Is it unparliamentary that MPs can be suspended from their party, and their constituents not be represented by the party they chose?

 

[MikeWM]

Deeply undemocratic? Seems like I have a neighbour up here in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

It's not my fault if people don't understand what a representative democracy is, or how it is supposed to work. Though an alarming number of MPs don't appear to either.

Also, where should we draw the line? Is it "deeply undemocratic" that Dennis Skinner was forced to withdraw for the day for breaking Parliament's rules by referring to Mr Cameron as "dodgy Dave"? Is it "deeply undemocratic" that Paul Bristow was forced to withdraw for the day for breaking Parliament's rules by repeatedly heckling Sir Keir Starmer even when asked not to do so (officially "disorderly conduct", I believe)?

'Rest of day' suspensions by the Speaker are of course unfortunate, but have to be allowed in order for Parliament to conduct its business in the face of repeated disorder. That's totally different to what is being discussed here.

Parliament has rules. Should MPs be punished for breaking them?

If you propose the upper limit to be 10 days' suspension, surely this may just encourage flagrant rule-breaking like Johnson's disgraceful behaviour in the wake of the inquiry, as they cannot be punished further?

So how do you propose rule-breaking MPs should be punished? After all, some line must be drawn between, say, unparliamentary language and the Keith Vaz scandal.

As I said above, I think that any MP that is censured by majority vote should trigger a recall petition by their constituents ('are you really sure you still want this person given what they've done?'). If their constitents choose not to recall, or to re-elect after recall, that's democracy and the other MPs will have to live with it. Other than that, nothing.

Is it unparliamentary that MPs can be suspended from their party, and their constituents not be represented by the party they chose?

They choose a representative that just so happens to be in a specific party, so no. They were free to choose someone in another party, or none.

 

[brad465]

Because the other MPs in the House of Commons weren't chosen by the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip to represent them. The other MPs have no right to tell those constituents that they cannot be represented for a whole 90 days by the person they chose.

There have to be limits on what a majority of the House of Commons is allowed to do. Else eg. any party with a majority could bar minority parties from participating in debates, or voting. It has to be a basic principle that MPs, even with a majority, cannot restrict the ability of other MPs to perform the task of representing the people who sent them there. The only thing they should be able to do in extremis is to refer the matter back to the relevant electorate.

If Johnson or any other MP who'd received suspensions hadn't done the bad stuff they were found guilty of doing, there would be no suspensions given. Also, when it's over 10 days, a recall petition is triggered in the constituency of that MP, which if a set threshold of signatures is reached, or, as is the case with Johnson here, if the MP resigns, a by-election is triggered. Therefore, "those constituents" do get a significant say on the matters at hand.

 

[SuspectUsual]

If that was their intent, why didn't they impose a 10-day suspension, which would have been sufficient to trigger a recall petition?

Their original intention was to recommend 20 days, it’s Johnson’s behaviour over the last week that caused it to be increased so much.

 

[MikeWM]

If Johnson or any other MP who'd received suspensions hadn't done the bad stuff they were found guilty of doing, there would be no suspensions given.

But my specific point is that an MP ought to be answerable to their electorate, not other MPs. Why should other MPs be able to decide to deprive the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip of their elected representative for three months?

Also, when it's over 10 days, a recall petition is triggered in the constituency of that MP, which if a set threshold of signatures is reached, or, as is the case with Johnson here, if the MP resigns, a by-election is triggered. Therefore, "those constituents" do get a significant say on the matters at hand.

Not if they still wanted the representative they previously elected. In this case they would then have to go without representation for a quarter of a year.

--

Their original intention was to recommend 20 days, it’s Johnson’s behaviour over the last week that caused it to be increased so much.

Which is utterly bizarre. Why should the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip be left without their elected representative for months simply based on other MP's perception of his behaviour?

 

[Typhoon]

Their original intention was to recommend 20 days, it’s Johnson’s behaviour over the last week that caused it to be increased so much.

Exactly. It is like Paterson all over again but turned up to 11. If he had received the original findings, and spoken in his defence when it came before the Commons for debate, he might have got a reduced 'sentence' or be excluded for what is normally a pretty dull session of the parliamentary year (not that he turns up much as it is). Instead he goes on the attack, in spades, by undermining the committee which, as far as I know, is selected by MPs, presumably because they think these particular members will hear any case fairly. I don't know about all of them but those I do know of, I have respect for, even those whose views generally I don't agree with.

Which is utterly bizarre. Why should the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip be left without their elected representative for months simply based on other MP's perception of his behaviour?

Johnson is 59 in a few days time, it has taken him a long time to learn that he will not always get his own way. As was once said about him "You don't care for anything because you are spoilt." Thanks to his petulance (and he was not 'forced out of Parliament' as he put it), the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip will be getting a new MP by the end of July so they have got him to be grateful for that; and there is every chance that that person will be more responsive to the constituents' needs than their predecessor. In truth the constituency has been without an elected representative for some time now, just someone has been drawing the salary.

 

[SuspectUsual]

But my specific point is that an MP ought to be answerable to their electorate, not other MPs. Why should other MPs be able to decide to deprive the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip of their elected representative for three months?

That’s just not realistic though.

For misdeeds, we have to have some sort of parliamentary oversight and sanctioning body. Without one, if the only possible course of action was a by-election, (1) it would impose a single sanction regardless of severity of the misdeed, and (2) there would be a significant chance that the MP concerned would get back in because of the party they represent

Remember that the recall mechanism is itself relatively new, and was only deemed necessary because modern-day MPs are not as honourable as their predecessors, where they’d be expected to resign and generally would

 

[nw1]

In fairness to de Pfeffel, in most constituencies it is the staff who do the work, the MP just rocks up to claim the credit. Alan Campbell, Labour MP for Tynemouth, is incredibly lazy but you wouldn’t know it from how he claims credit for everyone else’s work.

While I know nothing about this Tynemouth MP and can't comment either way on his laziness or otherwise, I wonder if there is a correlation between laziness and safeness of the seat.

 

[ainsworth74]

But my specific point is that an MP ought to be answerable to their electorate, not other MPs.

He would have been answerable to his electorate. But he quite before we ever got to find out whether 10% of them would back a recall petition and then whether enough of them would back him to remain their representative in the by-election. I wonder why he didn't stand and fight? Is it perhaps because a) he realised he would lose both aspects and b) because he knew he could make more money and it was better for his future goals to no longer be in Parliament? There's rumours swirling that he's about to land a high six figure role as a columnist in the Daily Mail.

Why should other MPs be able to decide to deprive the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip of their elected representative for three months?

It would, of course, have only been twenty days if his own behaviour hadn't been further serious contempt of Parliament or are you saying that his actions over the weekend should have been without consequence? There has to be powers available to Parliament to discipline its members when those members do things which get in the way of Parliament being able to carry out its business and it seems perfectly logical that there needs to be a sliding scale because then even minor infractions would get punished in the same way as serious infractions.

Plus, it's worth noting, that the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip have hardly had any actual representation for sometime now. How many votes has Boris taken part in since he ceased being PM? Three, wasn't it?

It strikes me that having a system where Parliament disciplines its own members but kicks the question back to the relevant constituents in serious enough cases to ask them if they still want this person to be their MP makes perfect sense. I honestly don't see how else we can operate if, when someone tells lies and deliberately misleads Parliament meaning it cannot do its job, there is no sanction available to Parliament to deal with that.

 

[nlogax]

Which is utterly bizarre. Why should the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip be left without their elected representative for months simply based on other MP's perception of his behaviour?

Johnson's own feckless behaviour caused this. Maybe the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip should ask him? Though by all accounts he was a poor representative for his constituency and they will be better off with someone else.. anyone else.

 

[brad465]

Well, Johnson was hardly ever going to pipe down and fade into obscurity was he:

Johnson confirmed as Daily Mail's new columnist day after report found he lied to Parliament

The Daily Mail posted a video in which the former Prime Minister promised readers 'completely unexpurgated stuff' in his columns

inews.co.uk

Boris Johnson is set to be unveiled as the Daily Mail’s new columnist, it has been reported.

It comes after the Privileges Committee found the former Prime Minister delberately misled Parliament over partygate.

Today’s front page of the Daily Mail reports that an “erudite new columnist who’ll be required reading in Westminster and across the world” will be starting on Saturday.

According to POLITICO’s Playbook, Mr Johnson is being paid “a very high six-figure sum” to pen a weekly column.

Before he became Prime Minister in 2019, Mr Johnson had written a column for the Daily Telegraph.

The Mail has been a staunch supporter of Mr Johnson during partygate, with an editorial in today’s paper branding the Privileges Committee’s findings “a risible exercise in bias and hypocrisy”.

In Thursday’s damning assessment of the former Prime Minister, the committee’s report said Mr Johnson would have faced a 90-day suspension if was still an MP, and suggested his parliamentary pass, normally available to former MPs, should be removed.

 

[nlogax]

Well, Johnson was hardly ever going to pipe down and fade into obscurity was he:

Johnson confirmed as Daily Mail's new columnist day after report found he lied to Parliament

The Daily Mail posted a video in which the former Prime Minister promised readers 'completely unexpurgated stuff' in his columns

inews.co.uk

Well. Fancy that, etc.

That's all Johnson and his clown car followers are good for - creating noise and chaos from the sidelines.

 

[dosxuk]

But my specific point is that an MP ought to be answerable to their electorate, not other MPs. Why should other MPs be able to decide to deprive the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip of their elected representative for three months?

Not if they still wanted the representative they previously elected. In this case they would then have to go without representation for a quarter of a year.

If Boris was concerned about the representation of his constituents, he had several options open to him:

1. Not lie about the goings on at Number 10 in the first place
2. Correct the record at the first opportunity when it became obvious that there had been parties at Number 10
3. Correct the record at the first opportunity when it became clear that the guidance had not been followed completely at all times
4. Use the opportunities given to him by the Privileges Committee to correct the record during his oral hearing
5. Distance himself and condemn those using terms like "kangaroo court" to describe the proceedings
6. Not break the rules of the Privileges Committee and make his public statement last Friday - instead continue to engage constructively with the committee
7. Argue during the Parliamentary hearing into the committee's report that 90 days (although it probably would only have been 20 days if he'd not gone to war with the committee) was an excessive punishment and would directly affect his constituents.
   
   Alternative punishment options were available, including, but not limited to:
   • A shorter suspension
   • A shorter suspension, with removal of pay for a longer duration
   • No suspension, but removal of pay for the original punishment period
8. Get suspended and resign immediately in order for a new MP to be elected
9. Campaign for the recall petition to be ignored by his constituents
10. Campaign after a successful recall petition for re-election
11. Return to the back benches and actually turn up for votes and debates after serving his punishment

Instead, he went straight for the Trump playbook, double down on the lies, even when everyone else knows he's lying. Try and gaslight the world into thinking that he couldn't possibly have done what he did. And then when that doesn't work, go on the attack and bring the entire process into disrepute.

If he had even the slightest bit of humility or acceptance that he could make mistakes, he would not be in the position he is now and the "sinister forces" wouldn't have had any sort of opportunity to restrict his constituents representation.

 

[Greenheart]

If Boris was concerned about the representation of his constituents, he had several options open to him:

1. Not lie about the goings on at Number 10 in the first place
2. Correct the record at the first opportunity when it became obvious that there had been parties at Number 10
3. Correct the record at the first opportunity when it became clear that the guidance had not been followed completely at all times
4. Use the opportunities given to him by the Privileges Committee to correct the record during his oral hearing
5. Distance himself and condemn those using terms like "kangaroo court" to describe the proceedings
6. Not break the rules of the Privileges Committee and make his public statement last Friday - instead continue to engage constructively with the committee
7. Argue during the Parliamentary hearing into the committee's report that 90 days (although it probably would only have been 20 days if he'd not gone to war with the committee) was an excessive punishment and would directly affect his constituents.
   
   Alternative punishment options were available, including, but not limited to:
   • A shorter suspension
   • A shorter suspension, with removal of pay for a longer duration
   • No suspension, but removal of pay for the original punishment period
8. Get suspended and resign immediately in order for a new MP to be elected
9. Campaign for the recall petition to be ignored by his constituents
10. Campaign after a successful recall petition for re-election
11. Return to the back benches and actually turn up for votes and debates after serving his punishment

Instead, he went straight for the Trump playbook, double down on the lies, even when everyone else knows he's lying. Try and gaslight the world into thinking that he couldn't possibly have done what he did. And then when that doesn't work, go on the attack and bring the entire process into disrepute.

If he had even the slightest bit of humility or acceptance that he could make mistakes, he would not be in the position he is now and the "sinister forces" wouldn't have had any sort of opportunity to restrict his constituents representation.

Within this are sound reasons as to why he might not command the confidence of the house as Prime Minister, but they should have nothing to do with his removal or suspension as a member of parliament, which must be entirely in the hands of the people of his constituency, who are the only ones to judge him on his performance as their MP. This is a fundamental principle of any fair democratic system and was demonstrated when Ken Livingstone, as elected Mayor of London, successfully overturned in the courts a suspension imposed on him by a quasi judicial body, also for what many would regard as questionable behaviour.

The process has got to be seen to be fair, balanced and acting within appropriate limits, as one day in the future it might be applied to remove someone you agree with.
Frankly I find the idea that any group of MPs are a wise and impartial jury laughable.

Ultimately, I think most people outside of social media and political circles don't really care about whether or not Boris Johnson did what he's been accused of.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why should other MPs be able to decide to deprive the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip of their elected representative for three months?

They voted for someone who is known to lie, break rules and generally not give a toss about anyone but himself so in a way they have some of the responsibility for the consequences of that once the rules catchup with who they voted for.

but they should have nothing to do with his removal or suspension as a member of parliament, which must be entirely in the hands of the people of his constituency,

So again, as someone else has asked in the thread, what do you suggest we do with MP's who break the rules? If they can't be punished for breaking the rules then the rules are essentially pointless and it becomes a free for all.

 

[ainsworth74]

The process has got to be seen to be fair, balanced and acting within appropriate limits, as one day in the future it might be applied to remove someone you agree with.
Frankly I find the idea that any group of MPs are a wise and impartial jury laughable.

Which is a bit of problem then seeing as the final sanction would have to be ratified by (and is subject to amendment by) all 650 MPs of the Commons. That suggests that it would be functionally impossible, in that case, for us to actually have effective Government at all seeing as "any group of MPs" presumably includes the whole House which votes on laws!

 

[Greenheart]

Which is a bit of problem then seeing as the final sanction would have to be ratified by (and is subject to amendment by) all 650 MPs of the Commons. That suggests that it would be functionally impossible, in that case, for us to actually have effective Government at all seeing as "any group of MPs" presumably includes the whole House which votes on laws!

Yes, none of whom, as a small group or as a whole, should have the power to remove an MP. Ask yourself how such a process could in theory be abused, say in the future an MP faces some trumped up charges after raising difficult questions on a contentious topic like on a cover up after a major disaster.

 

[dosxuk]

Yes, none of whom, as a small group or as a whole, should have the power to remove an MP. Ask yourself how such a process could in theory be abused, say in the future an MP faces some trumped up charges after raising difficult questions on a contentious topic like on a cover up after a major disaster.

That's a lovely straw man you've got there.

There's only a few rules that could result in suspension from Parliament - it would take an awful lot of made up charges, falsified evidence and bribed members to make awkward questions turn into something that suspension would be a possible punishment. Why don't you look at the way this enquiry was actually conducted (rather than what Boris says) and see how far they've gone to make the process transparent and fair?

If there are no rules and no punishments available to the house, then what stops a member being elected just to disrupt proceedings? If the only people who can decide whether a member is breaking the rules is the people who put them there, the whole system just collapses into anarchy.

 

[Greenheart]

Why don't you look at the way this enquiry was actually conducted (rather than what Boris says) and see how far they've gone to make the process transparent and fair?

I am considering the integrity of the process as a whole, not this particular example.

 

[edwin_m]

Which is utterly bizarre. Why should the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip be left without their elected representative for months simply based on other MP's perception of his behaviour?

Probably whataboutery but this isn't a unique situation.

A suspended MP can still make representations to appropriate bodies on behalf of constituents. They just can't attend, speak in or vote in the chamber. That's exactly the situation the constituents of the Speaker and deputies are in the whole time, without any scope to replace their MP with one who will be more politically active.

Also, if an MP dies or resigns, their party must move the writ for the by-election, and unelected party managers have considerable leeway on how long they delay before doing so, denying those constituents any sort of formal representation in the process.

I am considering the integrity of the process as a whole, not this particular example.

If the House as a whole considers the enquiry to be unfair, they can vote down the punishment or ultimately change the legislation that governs the process. Interesting thought that if committee members were believed to have behaved unacceptably when conducting an enquiry, they would be referred to their own committee.

 

[brad465]

Can he not do anything without breaking the law or a key code:

Boris Johnson Johnson breaks ministerial code over new Mail job

Vetting committee say the former PM should have cleared his new role with them first.

www.bbc.co.uk

Boris Johnson has committed a "clear breach" of the ministerial code by not clearing his new role writing a column for the Daily Mail first.
The committee that vets ex-ministers' appointments says he informed them only half an hour before the news emerged.
The Mail said the first column by the former prime minister, for Saturday's paper, would appear online later.
The newspaper was one of Mr Johnson's staunchest supporters when he was in No 10.
Mr Johnson has stood down as an MP, but is still required to seek advice from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) on new jobs for the next two years.
In a statement, Acoba said: "The ministerial code states that ministers must ensure that no new appointments are announced, or taken up, before the committee has been able to provide its advice.
"An application received 30 mins before an appointment is announced is a clear breach.
"We have written to Mr Johnson for an explanation and will publish correspondence in due course, in line with our policy of transparency."

The committee, chaired by Conservative peer Lord Pickles, has no powers to punish MPs - or former MPs - who have broken the rules but can issue public rebukes.
An Acoba spokeswoman told the BBC "newspaper columns are not considered significantly problematic", but Mr Johnson was still meant to seek its advice.

 

[nlogax]

Can he not do anything without breaking the law or a key code:

Safe to assume he doesn't care about ACOBA rules, he knows full well they're toothless especially as he's no longer an MP.

 

[SteveP29]

Instead, he went straight for the Trump playbook, double down on the lies, even when everyone else knows he's lying. Try and gaslight the world into thinking that he couldn't possibly have done what he did. And then when that doesn't work, go on the attack and bring the entire process into disrepute.

If he had even the slightest bit of humility or acceptance that he could make mistakes, he would not be in the position he is now and the "sinister forces" wouldn't have had any sort of opportunity to restrict his constituents representation.

Which has always been the Tory way, especially evident in the last 13 years where a lie is discovered, so another lie is perpetuated to cover the original lie, then the second lie is discovered so another lie replaces that.The hope is then that the third lie doesn't make as many waves when it's discovered as a completely new scandal will have emerged in the meantime.
For evidence, check our Russ Jones on Twitter and his now irregular 'Week in Tory' threads.

 

[brad465]

I wonder if the Daily Mail are getting buyer's remorse:

https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1669736971911016452

BORIS JOHNSON: Wonder drug I hoped would stop my raids for cheddar and chorizo didn't work for me https://trib.al/1APYTx1

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder if the Daily Mail are getting buyer's remorse:

https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/1669736971911016452

I doubt it, my parents love the Mail and are very much pro Boris.

I don't doubt that Mr Johnson can provide a columnist's observational wit, albeit maybe not to the standard of Keith Waterhouse !

 

[43096]

I doubt it, my parents love the Mail and are very much pro Boris.

I don't doubt that Mr Johnson can provide a columnist's observational wit, albeit maybe not to the standard of Keith Waterhouse !

How the hell can anyone be pre-Boris now? If you've any regard for truth, honesty and accountability you're all for never hearing from the lying coward ever again.

None of this behaviour is new, he's done it since he was born - presumably his parents never said "no" to him. The only surprise is that there are people who still haven't worked him out.

 

[birchesgreen]

Safe to assume he doesn't care about ACOBA any rules, he knows full well they're toothless especially as he's no longer an MP.

Corrected your post for you.

 

[nlogax]

Corrected your post for you.

Thank you kindly

 

[SuspectUsual]

Safe to assume he doesn't care about ACOBA rules, he knows full well they're toothless especially as he's no longer an MP.

ACOBA should have the power to go after the employer as well as the employee.

Same as if they employed someone who wasn’t qualified to work because they didn’t have the correct visa

They know the rules perfectly well and are playing an equal part in breaching them