Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[brad465]

Which might include quite a few not unadjacent to Sunak. Apparently one reason this enquiry has taken so long is that the Johnson government stalled on providing any documents to it, and those that did arrive were so heavily redacted as to be pretty useless. Soon after Sunak took over, the enquiry got the evidence it needed.

Pity perverting the course of justice doesn't extend to Parliamentary standards' investigations.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I see Johnson-loyalist Andrea Jenkyns has described the investigation as “a kangaroo court”. Is that a contempt of parliament?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Johnson has always been about the cult of personality, it was when he was a poor and lazy journalist, it was when he was a poor and lazy Mayor, and it was when he was a poor and lazy Prime Minister. But sadly a cultish personality will often win out over understated competence.

I have very little time for the policies of May or Sunak, but at least they were and are competent.

It’s an impressive achievement that Johnson defenestrated nearly all of the One Nation wing of the party over Brexit, yet still half the Westminster Conservative Party hates him. I hope they continue to rip each other to shreds, it’s jolly good fun.

 

[edwin_m]

It’s an impressive achievement that Johnson defenestrated nearly all of the One Nation wing of the party over Brexit, yet still half the Westminster Conservative Party hates him. I hope they continue to rip each other to shreds, it’s jolly good fun.

It might be fun if they were in opposition and they couldn't do much harm. Unfortunately we probably have to put up with their attempts at running the country for another 18 months or so.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Unfortunately we probably have to put up with their attempts at running the country for another 18 months or so.

If they’re stabbing each other in the back they’re not getting down to actual business, which is the comfort I take. They were far more dangerous united behind Johnson and with a whacking great majority.

Of course the worry is that their ridiculous ideas spook the markets and we get another Liz Truss recession.

 

[duncanp]

I can see a number of Tories wanting Johnson removed from Parliament just so he can stop undermining the party from within, thus would do whatever they can to get him suspended and recalled.

...including, er, Rishi Sunak and most of the government.

Dominic C******s says that Rishi has enough dirt on Boris Johnson to finish him off, in case the privileges committee don't do so first.

 

[birchesgreen]

It might be fun if they were in opposition and they couldn't do much harm. Unfortunately we probably have to put up with their attempts at running ruining the country for another 18 months or so.

Corrected your post for you

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dominic C******s says that Rishi has enough dirt on Boris Johnson to finish him off, in case the privileges committee don't do so first.

He almost certainly does. After all, Sunak only got the job as Chancellor because he agreed to have his special advisers appointed by Cummings; his predecessor Sajid Javid had refused such an offer and was therefore sacked by Boris.

 

[brad465]

So in the expected Windsor framework vote this afternoon, both Johnson and Truss have said they will vote against it in a growing list of Tory rebels. If Labour support it as they said they will before the agreement was struck, it will get through, but a Government vote needing opposition votes to pass is not a good look for the Government:

Boris Johnson and Liz Truss to vote against Sunak's NI Brexit deal

The two former PMs say they believe Rishi Sunak's deal will undermine the benefits of Brexit.

www.bbc.co.uk

Two former prime ministers, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, are to vote against Rishi Sunak's new Brexit deal for Northern Ireland in a debate later.
Mr Johnson said the deal would either mean Northern Ireland remained tied to the EU, or the UK would not be able to take advantage of Brexit.
Ms Truss believes it would not resolve issues with a deal Mr Johnson struck with the EU in 2019.
Other Brexit-backing Tories are also expected to oppose the deal.

The decision of two former prime ministers to oppose the deal may embolden Brexit-backing Conservative MPs to rebel against the government in Wednesday's vote.
However, the scale of the rebellion is not yet clear, with a key group of Eurosceptic Tories undecided on how they will vote.
Mr Sunak's government is still expected to win the vote with the support of Labour, who have backed the deal.
The vote is on a key part of the deal, known as the Stormont brake, that aims to give a future Northern Ireland Assembly a greater say on how EU laws apply to Northern Ireland.
Under the emergency mechanism assembly members could formally raise concerns over new EU goods legislation, potentially leading to the suspension of the law and arbitration with the EU.
Wednesday's vote is likely to be the only vote MPs get on Mr Sunak's overall Windsor Framework - which he agreed with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last month.
Under the Northern Ireland Protocol, inspection and document checks are carried out at Northern Ireland's ports instead of taking place at the Irish border - including goods travelling from Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) to Northern Ireland.
The checks apply even if the goods are due to remain in Northern Ireland.
Mr Sunak's new deal is aimed at significantly reducing the number of checks.
The prime minister said the Windsor Framework was proof that the UK has "taken back control", with his spokesperson adding it was "the best deal for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland".
In a statement, Mr Johnson said he found the proposed arrangements of the deal "unacceptable" as the best way for the UK to take back control, and believed it would be best for the government to proceed with the NI Protocol Bill.
That bill would give UK ministers powers in domestic law to make radical unilateral changes to the protocol - but the government says the new deal means there is now no legal justification for doing so.
Mr Johnson agreed the original protocol with the EU in 2019 describing it as "a great deal for our country".
"The proposed arrangements would mean either that Northern Ireland remained captured by the EU legal order - and was increasingly divergent from the rest of the UK - or they would mean that the whole of the UK was unable properly to diverge and take advantage of Brexit," he said.
"That is not acceptable. I will be voting against the proposed arrangements today."
Ms Truss is also said to believe the new framework "fatally impinges" on the UK's ability to diverge from EU rules.
Earlier this week, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) said it will vote against the Brexit plans in Parliament this week.
Leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said he will continue to work with the government on "outstanding issues" - even though Downing Street said there are no plans for any substantial change to the deal.
The European Research Group (ERG) of Eurosceptic Tory MPs has criticised the Stormont brake, with legal experts advising them it was "practically useless".
The deputy chairman of the group, David Jones, said he would be voting against the deal.
But when asked if the ERG would take a unified position on the deal in Wednesday's vote, he said: "We are not Stalinist."
The vote will take place during Mr Johnson's testimony before the Privileges Committee on Wednesday, where he will be quizzed by MPs over Partygate - a day after he admitted misleading Parliament by accident.
There will be a short break so MPs can vote.

 

[MikeWM]

So in the expected Windsor framework vote this afternoon, both Johnson and Truss have said they will vote against it in a growing list of Tory rebels. If Labour support it as they said they will before the agreement was struck, it will get through, but a Government vote needing opposition votes to pass is not a good look for the Government:

It is also pretty appalling that this 90-minute debate looks like being the only time Parliament will get to discuss this issue before voting on it. (And most of that will inevitably be taken up by the minister and the opposition spokesperson, probably leaving all of 30 minutes or so for everyone else to try to voice an opinion).

Something this important deserves much longer, probably a couple of full days at least - but that's the usual contempt the executive shows for Parliament nowadays.

 

[najaB]

Something this important deserves much longer, probably a couple of full days at least - but that's the usual contempt the executive shows for Parliament nowadays.

The problem is that, the more time people spend looking at the baby, the more likely it is that someone will notice that it's a piglet.

The Government's approach to all things Brexit-related is to provide as little opportunity for examination as possible, so that the arch Brexit-supporters don't realise that we're starting to move (at a glacial pace) onto a course that keeps us more closely aligned with the EU.

 

[MikeWM]

The problem is that, the more time people spend looking at the baby, the more likely it is that someone will notice that it's a piglet.

The Government's approach to all things Brexit-related is to provide as little opportunity for examination as possible, so that the arch Brexit-supporters don't realise that we're starting to move (at a glacial pace) onto a course that keeps us more closely aligned with the EU.

That does appear to be the conclusion that the DUP and ERG have now reached, at least in the regard to this 'deal'. While I haven't dug much into the legal detail, what I have looked at makes me believe that you are correct.

 

[Mag_seven]

but a Government vote needing opposition votes to pass is not a good look for the Government

"Good looks" for this government went out the window months ago.

 

[edwin_m]

If they’re stabbing each other in the back they’re not getting down to actual business, which is the comfort I take. They were far more dangerous united behind Johnson and with a whacking great majority.

Of course the worry is that their ridiculous ideas spook the markets and we get another Liz Truss recession.

Even when they're rounding on each other they can still cause huge damage. And it's arguable that Johnson and Truss were too incompetent to achieve very much, which may not be so true of Sunak.

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill 2022 is still on track to repeal all, or most, or some (according to the whim of ministers) of the UK laws that originally derived from EU regulations - at the end of 2023. If this happens it will be a disaster for everybody except those speculators who are betting against the economy. In the meantime it's further damaging the small prospects that remain that businesses might want to invest in the UK. Sunak probably wants to stop it, but doesn't have the authority within his party.

Before I sit back and open the popcorn, I'd rather we had a government in power that would kill this and other insane measures that might be coming down the line.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Before I sit back and open the popcorn, I'd rather we had a government in power that would kill this and other insane measures that might be coming down the line.

I’d definitely agree with you there, but there’s no chance of that any time soon. I’m amazed how much power the political wing of the UVF continues to wield.

 

[brad465]

Sunak will publish his tax return at 4pm this afternoon, a very long time after he said he would:

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1638539927259344898

NEW: Rishi Sunak's long-awaited tax return will be published at 4pm today - the busiest day in politics for weeks [@Peston]

 

[MikeWM]

Tory rebellion of 22 on the Windsor framework (23 if you count Andrew Bridgden, which we probably should in this context). 280 Tory ayes, which more than offset the combined noes and ayes from the other parties - so a government majority, not reliant on votes from other parties. Sunak will probably be rather happy with that.

I still think it is ludicrous that Parliament is spending significantly longer today talking about Boris Johnson and his parties, than on discussing this rather important constitutional matter. Priorities are all wrong.

 

[brad465]

I still think it is ludicrous that Parliament is spending significantly longer today talking about Boris Johnson and his parties, than on discussing this rather important constitutional matter. Priorities are all wrong.

This didn't have to be the case, but Johnson and co. tried long and hard to delay handing over the evidence for the misleading Parliament investigation; had he complied from the start, it could have been all over by the end of last year. When Sunak came in the evidence was handed over, but much of the delay had already happened by this point.

 

[MikeWM]

This didn't have to be the case, but Johnson and co. tried long and hard to delay handing over the evidence for the misleading Parliament investigation; had he complied from the start, it could have been all over by the end of last year. When Sunak came in the evidence was handed over, but much of the delay had already happened by this point.

Yes - it is the fact that the two things have happened on the same day that brings the comparison into sharp focus.

 

[dosxuk]

I still think it is ludicrous that Parliament is spending significantly longer today talking about Boris Johnson and his parties, than on discussing this rather important constitutional matter. Priorities are all wrong.

Whether or not the Prime Minister was lying to the House of Commons is a fairly important constitutional manner. The house relies on ministers telling the truth to perform it's duties, ministers, prime or otherwise, should rightly be held to account if it is believed that they have wilfully misled Parliament. While it's slightly unfortunate that both event have occurred simultaneously, the privileges committee hearing is an important event.

 

[MikeWM]

Whether or not the Prime Minister was lying to the House of Commons is a fairly important constitutional manner. The house relies on ministers telling the truth to perform it's duties, ministers, prime or otherwise, should rightly be held to account if it is believed that they have wilfully misled Parliament. While it's slightly unfortunate that both event have occurred simultaneously, the privileges committee hearing is an important event.

I'm not really arguing that it isn't, just that the Windsor framework is more important still and should have had significantly more time for debate.

 

[jon0844]

This didn't have to be the case, but Johnson and co. tried long and hard to delay handing over the evidence for the misleading Parliament investigation; had he complied from the start, it could have been all over by the end of last year. When Sunak came in the evidence was handed over, but much of the delay had already happened by this point.

It's all part of the plan to delay things such that you can then begin to say 'this is a witch-hunt and has been going on for months/years, is there nothing more important to worry about?'. Same thing the Republicans said in the USA over Jan 6th. Two years on and people are still upset. Let's put it behind us and forget...

Sometimes it takes a long time to get justice, especially when people are very good at impeding investigations.

 

[GusB]

I'm watching Johnson's hearing now, and finding it rather painful. It's just the usual bluster and waffle - is his nose getting longer?

 

[43096]

I'm watching Johnson's hearing now, and finding it rather painful. It's just the usual bluster and waffle - is his nose getting longer?

Why would you expect anything else? With Johnson it’s a case of “mouth moving, lie happening”.

 

[Howardh]

I'm watching Johnson's hearing now, and finding it rather painful. It's just the usual bluster and waffle - is his nose getting longer?

The rope they are handing him is as long as his nose. A referee would have stopped this hours ago.

Think underneath all the bluster is "I made the rules, I stood on the lectern dictating them to the country, but no-one told me I or those around me were breaking those rules because nobody told me what they were.

 

[dosxuk]

The rope they are handing him is as long as his nose. A referee would have stopped this hours ago.

He was given a couple of opportunities to get himself out of trouble, but got well and truly caught in his own lies in two places - both of which would allow the committee to find him guilty:

• As a parliamentarian, he is responsible for what he says in parliament. He chose to get his advice about whether rules were broken from political advisors, that he appointed, who were primarily involved with dealing with the press. He did not get advice from anyone from the civil service or with legal knowledge.
• He was offered a further opportunity to correct the record about whether guidelines were followed, he chose to stand by his previous correction and that the guidelines were followed. Earlier in the hearing, he admitted that the guidelines were not followed on numerous occasions, but that he didn't believe that mattered due to the conditions that existed at Number 10. This alone means he is still misleading Parliament about what went on.

He's set his messaging out for what's to come though, when given the opportunity to state that while he may disagree with their decision, but it was still a fair system, he declined. With his supporters already setting out that it's a witch-hunt / kangaroo court, it's clear that if they decide in his favour, he will say it was a fair hearing, but if they disagree than it was unfair and they're just out to get him.

 

[BrianW]

"Good looks" for this government went out the window months ago.

A coupld of quotes from the past coming to mins:

'Good day to bury bad news'?
Sunak tax paid £432,000- and how much not paid?

'People have got to know if their President's a crook'.

'It's only a flesh wound'.

Johnson in a minority of 22 Conservative 'has beens'.

Food inflation 18% !!!

A day in politics is a long time.

 

[najaB]

I'm not really arguing that it isn't, just that the Windsor framework is more important still and should have had significantly more time for debate.

I don't know that I can agree with that. If MPs know that they can mislead the house without consequences then the whole basis of parliamentary democracy is shot. A debate over any legislation or government policy is predicated on the assumption that the participants are, to the best of their ability, making factual statements.

What value is any discussion or scrutiny of the Windsor Framework if those proposing it (or those opposing it) are free to say whatever they feel like? A vote for the framework guarantees a unicorn in every pot and a rainbow in every garage?

 

[BrianW]

He was given a couple of opportunities to get himself out of trouble, but got well and truly caught in his own lies in two places - both of which would allow the committee to find him guilty:

• As a parliamentarian, he is responsible for what he says in parliament. He chose to get his advice about whether rules were broken from political advisors, that he appointed, who were primarily involved with dealing with the press. He did not get advice from anyone from the civil service or with legal knowledge.
• He was offered a further opportunity to correct the record about whether guidelines were followed, he chose to stand by his previous correction and that the guidelines were followed. Earlier in the hearing, he admitted that the guidelines were not followed on numerous occasions, but that he didn't believe that mattered due to the conditions that existed at Number 10. This alone means he is still misleading Parliament about what went on.

He's set his messaging out for what's to come though, when given the opportunity to state that while he may disagree with their decision, but it was still a fair system, he declined. With his supporters already setting out that it's a witch-hunt / kangaroo court, it's clear that if they decide in his favour, he will say it was a fair hearing, but if they disagree than it was unfair and they're just out to get him.

This.

 

[nlogax]

Catching up with some of the committee session now. It's completely as expected, basically 'how dare you question my judgement' while trying to stretch some meagre half-truths around a series of very obvious and well-documented lies. From a parliamentary entertainment perspective I'm a little disappointed he didn't completely erupt with self-righteous anger but all the usual Johnson elements were present and (in)correct. His suggestion that the only correct 'unbiased outcome' would be not guilty spoke volumes to what Johnson is really about.