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

[Typhoon]

The Express has the headline ‘BULLISH’ PM’S SURVIVAL PLAN. I think they have got the last three letters of the first word in the wrong order and missed the T on the end. It also says he will ditch Left-wing policies...really!

'Left-wing policies' apparently mean 'nanny-state policies' and 'the green agenda'.

One insider told the Sunday Express: “The facetime the boss has spent with backbenchers this week has shown him, clearly, that the nanny state approach doesn’t have the support of his MPs.

“Equally, prioritising the so-called, ‘green agenda’ items is not helpful – the PM has been forced to understand this.

The first presumably affects benefits. If so, they need to remember that quite a few who are on benefits are actually in work. I guess it also includes the measures Sunak has put forward on Council Tax and fuel (the latter is only a loan anyway). Many of the other 'Nanny State' measures introduced by Blair and Brown were discarded by Osbourne.

The second clearly means that 'Cop26' meant nothing. Rowing back on these would clearly show that Johnson doesn't care less about policies, just wants the position. if you elect someone who changes direction with the wind, it is fine while the wind is blowing in your direction, but ... This probably won't affect many of the Red Wall seats but might irritate those that took the deadlines seriously and invested in green measures.

The majority of the English electorate deliberately chose a Johnson-led government in December 2019, when they knew he was a cad.

Munira Mirza presumably knew that at heart he was a cad, she started working for him in 2008, but decided that his failure to apologise for the Savile accusation was a step too far, even after she urged him to do so, realising the impact that it could have. That says something else about him - he won't admit to being wrong, even when it is blindingly obvious that he is. I can be stubborn but this is a whole new ball game. it also says something about her - maybe we have been saved from worse in the past because of her interventions.

 

[adrock1976]

I’m starting to think Nadine Dorries needs some help. She is an absolute embarrassment to this country. Continually appearing on TV interviews acting like a hormonal teenager. Is there anything left for the satirists?

Is Dorries the MP that during when Parliament was sitting, she disappeared to a jungle in the Southern Hemisphere pretending to be a "celebrity" politician on TV?

 

[Typhoon]

Is Dorries the MP that during when Parliament was sitting, she disappeared to a jungle in the Southern Hemisphere pretending to be a "celebrity" politician on TV?

I am afraid so
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02396/nadine-trial2_2396490b.jpg
It was probably one the entries on her CV for the Secretary of State for DCMS. (I guess the 'M' rather than the 'C')

 

[Strathclyder]

Much ado about nothing very much. Lots of people broke the Covid rules but haven't been found out. These informal parties at 10 Downing Street are a trivial matter, for which it is ridiculous to hound the PM, given that his behaviour was predictable. The majority of the English electorate deliberately chose a Johnson-led government in December 2019, when they knew he was a cad.

Yes, these parties were trivial. Or they would be if he hadn't gone on TV to recite the rules and recited the rules and the importance of following them while he was throwing/attending them. And if, when he was inevitably found out, he apologized unreservedly for them and took full responsibilty for his actions (I know this is BoJo we're talking about, but speaking generally here), this would've faded away by now for the most part.

But no. He has repeatedly lied about, doubled down on and deflected blame for his actions and has treated us, the general public and electorate alike, like idiots in the aftermath of the initial revelations with all the thinly veiled contempt he is renowned for. This is precisely why the press kept digging... sorry, badgering, that the police had to open a investigation and why public outrage is so particularly overwhelming, sustained and acute this time around. People are going to remember this at the ballot box.

So in short, his behaviour is indeed hardly surprising in the wider context of his life/career, but is particuarly egregious in this moment of national crisis. He very much deserves to be hounded for his contemptable conduct here. Not a shred of sympathy is deserved or warranted; he dug himself this hole and he can stay there as it all collapses on him for all I care.

 

[nw1]

If it's all "trivial" then will Johnson insist that everyone who was cautioned or fined by the police can have their fines back and convictions absolutely cleared?? I recall two friends on a park bench, outside obvioulsly, enjoying a coffee together attracted police attention...

Exactly, and this act of authoritarianism (remember that these two friends were in a 'bubble', in addition to being outside) shows that Johnson's government are in no way libertarian, and people who accuse Labour of a militant approach to lockdown measures should look at what the Tories did.

How can it be right that Johnson gets away with blatant parties, whereas other people who performed actions which would have almost no chance of spreading the virus were bothered by the police? Because Alexander "Boris" Johnson and his acolytes believe that the rules do not apply to him, of course.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Exactly, and this act of authoritarianism (remember that these two friends were in a 'bubble', in addition to being outside) shows that Johnson's government are in no way libertarian, and people who accuse Labour of a militant approach to lockdown measures should look at what the Tories did.

Labour supported pretty much all the lockdown measures, and if anything were usually demanding that lockdown be implemented earlier and remain in place for longer. In Wales where Labour was in charge of determining lockdown laws, the measures were generally even more draconian than in England (ditto in Scotland, but that was SNP decisions, not Labour decisions). The calls for lockdown measures to be less draconian, and what little opposition there was to the lockdown in Parliament came almost entirely from Tory backbenchers, not from Labour MPs. The facts do seem to indicate that Labour did indeed have a more militant approach to lockdown measures than the Tories did.

 

[Strathclyder]

I am afraid so
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02396/nadine-trial2_2396490b.jpg
It was probably one the entries on her CV for the Secretary of State for DCMS. (I guess the 'M' rather than the 'C')

Oy vey. Knowing her ilk, she likely considers it the high point of her career. Good prep for her current occupation too as @AM9 notes below.

 

[brad465]

Exactly, and this act of authoritarianism (remember that these two friends were in a 'bubble', in addition to being outside) shows that Johnson's government are in no way libertarian, and people who accuse Labour of a militant approach to lockdown measures should look at what the Tories did.

How can it be right that Johnson gets away with blatant parties, whereas other people who performed actions which would have almost no chance of spreading the virus were bothered by the police? Because Alexander "Boris" Johnson and his acolytes believe that the rules do not apply to him, of course.

Labour supported pretty much all the lockdown measures, and if anything were usually demanding that lockdown be implemented earlier and remain in place for longer. In Wales where Labour was in charge of determining lockdown laws, the measures were generally even more draconian than in England (ditto in Scotland, but that was SNP decisions, not Labour decisions). The calls for lockdown measures to be less draconian, and what little opposition there was to the lockdown in Parliament came almost entirely from Tory backbenchers, not from Labour MPs. The facts do seem to indicate that Labour did indeed have a more militant approach to lockdown measures than the Tories did.

Based on Labour's views on restrictions, were they in power I think they would absolutely have tried to go harder than the Tories have done. However, they would not have got away with going harder anywhere near to the extent the Tories have been able to get away with the level of restrictions they actually imposed. The media that typically backs the Tories would have absolutely hammered Labour for them, and if Corbyn was the one imposing lockdowns I can see the Mail running with "Corbyn's Communist lockdowns" as a recurring headline. They may even have encouraged civil unrest against them and ensured such unrest got all the publicity it could. Then of course there's the simple fact that I doubt the numbers in Parliament would exist for Labour to impose harsher restrictions: I reckon Lockdown 1 would have still happened, but 2 and 3 would have been much more difficult, as the Tories would have almost united in opposition, rather than just a few dozen backbenchers, and Labour would have had rebels of their own. I also seriously doubt vaccine passports would have ever materialised; Corbyn's opposition to them will have prevented a Labour Government led by him imposing them, and even if Labour supported them in Government, again Tory and Lib Dem opposition would have prevented them (especially in a hung Parliament situation).

The point I'm making here is this, while certain parties would absolutely do things differently, and in many cases more harshly, certain checks and balances would have made certain policies impossible to implement and/or sustain. Many of these checks and balances have double standards depending on which party is in power.

 

[AM9]

I am afraid so
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02396/nadine-trial2_2396490b.jpg
It was probably one the entries on her CV for the Secretary of State for DCMS. (I guess the 'M' rather than the 'C')

You can see that she's used to working with cockroaches, good prep for a job at the top of the current government.

 

[nw1]

Oy vey. Knowing her ilk, she likely considers it the high point of her career. Good prep for her current occupation too as @AM9 notes below.

What is DCMS - Department of Cockroach Management Services?

 

[Strathclyder]

What is DCMS - Department of Cockroach Management Services?

That's a insult to cockroaches, I'll have you know!

 

[brad465]

I see Lord Ashcroft has been sticking his knife into someone again, this time Carrie Johnson:

Carrie Johnson: I'm target of a brutal briefing campaign

The PM's wife says she is being targeted by his enemies and insists she plays no role in government.

www.bbc.co.uk

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie has said she is the target of a "brutal briefing campaign" by the PM's enemies.
A book, serialised in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday this weekend, alleges she has influence on the prime minister's decision-making.
Her spokeswoman said allegations made by Tory peer Lord Ashcroft were "just the latest attempt by bitter ex-officials" to discredit her.
She added: "She is a private individual who plays no role in government."
Lord Ashcroft has suggested Mrs Johnson's behaviour was "preventing him [the prime minister] from leading Britain as effectively as the voters deserve".
There have been allegations of her involvement in matters including the redecoration of the No 11 Downing Street flat she shares with her family - she is said to have pushed for a luxury revamp of their home - and the evacuation of animals from the Nowzad charity in Kabul, Afghanistan.
No 10 has denied either Mr or Mrs Johnson, who works for a conservation group, had any involvement in the evacuation.
Lord Ashcroft's unauthorised biography of Carrie Johnson follows similar books he has written on Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, Chancellor Rishi Sunak, leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg and former prime minister David Cameron.
He has said all author royalties from his new book, First Lady, are being donated to NHS charities. The peer, a former Conservative Party treasurer and deputy chairman, has donated millions to the Tories.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said Mrs Johnson was "under scrutiny in a way that perhaps other prime minsters' spouses weren't".
"The reportage that somehow she's got undue influence, I don't think that's true," he told Times Radio. "The prime minister has been in politics for 25 years and has a pretty strong set of ideas."
He said reporting about her was not sexist though, adding: "I wouldn't say that but I do think it's interesting when the spouse is someone in their 30s and has got open positions that are well known, people feel free to criticise - I think that's interesting."

 

[nw1]

Based on Labour's views on restrictions, were they in power I think they would absolutely have tried to go harder than the Tories have done. However, they would not have got away with going harder anywhere near to the extent the Tories have been able to get away with the level of restrictions they actually imposed. The media that typically backs the Tories would have absolutely hammered Labour for them, and if Corbyn was the one imposing lockdowns I can see the Mail running with "Corbyn's Communist lockdowns" as a recurring headline. They may even have encouraged civil unrest against them and ensured such unrest got all the publicity it could. Then of course there's the simple fact that I doubt the numbers in Parliament would exist for Labour to impose harsher restrictions: I reckon Lockdown 1 would have still happened, but 2 and 3 would have been much more difficult, as the Tories would have almost united in opposition, rather than just a few dozen backbenchers, and Labour would have had rebels of their own. I also seriously doubt vaccine passports would have ever materialised; Corbyn's opposition to them will have prevented a Labour Government led by him imposing them, and even if Labour supported them in Government, again Tory and Lib Dem opposition would have prevented them (especially in a hung Parliament situation).

The point I'm making here is this, while certain parties would absolutely do things differently, and in many cases more harshly, certain checks and balances would have made certain policies impossible to implement and/or sustain. Many of these checks and balances have double standards depending on which party is in power.

That's a good point. I suspect the second two lockdowns would have gone ahead, as there was quite a bit of support at the time, though as you say the 'checks and balances' of a hung parliament would probably have prevented Labour doing anything more than the Tories. I will admit that Labour would likely have retained social distancing measures and 'signing in' to pubs, etc, for longer to be fair, though I think the government policy on those was likely down to Javid, and not Johnson.

My point really was trying to counter the assertion that the Tories were soft, or even over-soft, on lockdowns. Given their measures extended beyond what many would consider reasonable (as in, legislation against outdoor low-risk activity in the first and third lockdowns), I would disagree.

 

[The Ham]

That's a good point. I suspect the second two lockdowns would have gone ahead, as there was quite a bit of support at the time, though as you say the 'checks and balances' of a hung parliament would probably have prevented Labour doing anything more than the Tories. I will admit that Labour would likely have retained social distancing measures and 'signing in' to pubs, etc, for longer to be fair, though I think the government policy on those was likely down to Javid, and not Johnson.

My point really was trying to counter the assertion that the Tories were soft, or even over-soft, on lockdowns. Given their measures extended beyond what many would consider reasonable (as in, legislation against outdoor low-risk activity in the first and third lockdowns), I would disagree.

I think that I'm minded to agree, probably the lockdowns may have started sooner (there was certainly a lot of people who did this themselves at the start of the first lockdown and certainly the impression I got was that many were ready for a lockdown to be announced about a week before the first lockdown was), however overall probably not a significant difference overall.

 

[Typhoon]

I see Lord Ashcroft has been sticking his knife into someone again, this time Carrie Johnson:

Carrie Johnson: I'm target of a brutal briefing campaign

The PM's wife says she is being targeted by his enemies and insists she plays no role in government.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Conservatives are quite happy to take Ashcroft's money

The Conservatives’ London mayoral candidate has received nearly 40% of his campaign donations from the former party treasurer Lord Ashcroft, who has been at the centre of a decade of offshore tax controversies.

Shaun Bailey, the challenger to Labour’s Sadiq Khan, has raised £255,000 in cash since the beginning of 2020, according to Electoral Commission records, but has been in effect heavily reliant on a £100,000 Ashcroft donation to keep his faltering campaign alive.

He almost certainly feels that this entitles him to get a return on his investment - in the form of being able to mouth off about whomever he likes. Rather than moan about it, the Tories should just not take his money. He avoids tax as a non-dom, so does not deserve to have his voice heard. The book will be in the bargain dumps in a few months unless he is given the oxygen of publicity. Not surprised it is the Mail that is giving it - I would like to know whether he is paying them or they are paying him, if reviews of his previous are anything to go by.

As regards Kwateng and his

Mrs Johnson was "under scrutiny in a way that perhaps other prime minsters' spouses weren't".

Really? Cherie Blair from Day One; Denis Thatcher was lampooned mercilessly; Norma Major was tied in the John and their 'dull' life. SamCam and Mary Wilson weren't let off lightly. either. Some put themselves in the limelight and get flack as a result. It goes with the position; spending a kings ransom on wallpaper did not help.

Also be careful what you say/ shout - “You just don’t care for anything because you’re spoilt. You have no care for money or anything” is likely to encourage the media to think there will be more where that came from.

I think that I'm minded to agree, probably the lockdowns may have started sooner (there was certainly a lot of people who did this themselves at the start of the first lockdown and certainly the impression I got was that many were ready for a lockdown to be announced about a week before the first lockdown was), however overall probably not a significant difference overall.

Agree on the first lockdown; second one I thought Starmer wanted it to coincide with the school half term which made sense.

 

[Busaholic]

Labour supported pretty much all the lockdown measures, and if anything were usually demanding that lockdown be implemented earlier.

Did the U.K. Parliamentary Report published on 11/10/21 pass your notice? It concluded what so many have known for so long, that the first lockdown came too late and caused thousands of unnecessary deaths, deaths that caused this country to go near or at the top of world statistics where we have lingered ever since. So Labour were right, according to that report by our democratic representatives.

 

[SuspectUsual]

So Carrie Johnson has a spokesperson. Anyone know who pays their wages?

 

[birchesgreen]

So Carrie Johnson has a spokesperson. Anyone know who pays their wages?

You and me probably.

 

[SuspectUsual]

You and me probably.

That was what I feared. Utterly unjustifiable of course, but what’s one more nose in the trough?

 

[43096]

So Carrie Johnson has a spokesperson. Anyone know who pays their wages?

She also seems to have at least two derogatory nicknames: Carrie Antoinette and Princess Nut Nut.

The obvious question to be asked is why would she get those nicknames in the Downing Street political machinery unless she was getting involved with those politics?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Did the U.K. Parliamentary Report published on 11/10/21 pass your notice? It concluded what so many have known for so long, that the first lockdown came too late and caused thousands of unnecessary deaths, deaths that caused this country to go near or at the top of world statistics where we have lingered ever since. So Labour were right, according to that report by our democratic representatives.

Yes that report did not escape my notice. Without wanting to get diverted into a Covid discussion, it's also not escaped my notice that one of the main reasons why the UK has consistently been top of the Covid statistics is that we test far more than most other countries, which means that for much of the last 2 years people catching Covid would be far more likely to be detected here than almost anywhere else: That seems to me to be a good thing. So I'd be a little careful before you start quoting cherry-picked statistics without checking their significance.

But this isn't the place to debate Covid. The point I was trying to make in the post you replied to was that people simultaneously both accuse the Tories of being too authoritarian about Covid restrictions and demand earlier/longer/harder lockdowns. Well you can't have it both ways. *If* you think that the Tory approach to lockdown was too authoritarian (and personally I'm inclined to agree that with hindsight, it probably was), then it follows that Labour's approach to lockdown was even more too-authoritarian.

 

[brad465]

She also seems to have at least two derogatory nicknames: Carrie Antoinette and Princess Nut Nut.

The obvious question to be asked is why would she get those nicknames in the Downing Street political machinery unless she was getting involved with those politics?

The Tory party is ultimately still a male patriarchy at heart*, they have a track record of humiliating/scapegoating women whenever the party is in trouble. Yes they've had 2 female PMs, 2 more than Labour, but both of them were absolutely hounded publicly in the build-up to their eventual demises, whereas male leaders tend to be given a chance to go gracefully, and only if they resist do they get public humiliation, as IDS sort of found out. In this case the go to woman for scapegoating appears to be Johnson's current wife, who has at least had some involvement in politics in the Tory party pre-Johnson's premiership, and some of No.10s advisors have been linked to her. I recall even Sarah Vine (Gove's ex) being concerned about the whole issue in past Daily Mail articles.

*Other political parties ultimately have their own prejudices too, but are not related to this particular issue.

 

[Busaholic]

Yes that report did not escape my notice. Without wanting to get diverted into a Covid discussion, it's also not escaped my notice that one of the main reasons why the UK has consistently been top of the Covid statistics is that we test far more than most other countries, which means that for much of the last 2 years people catching Covid would be far more likely to be detected here than almost anywhere else: That seems to me to be a good thing. So I'd be a little careful before you start quoting cherry-picked statistics without checking their significance.

But this isn't the place to debate Covid. The point I was trying to make in the post you replied to was that people simultaneously both accuse the Tories of being too authoritarian about Covid restrictions and demand earlier/longer/harder lockdowns. Well you can't have it both ways. *If* you think that the Tory approach to lockdown was too authoritarian (and personally I'm inclined to agree that with hindsight, it probably was), then it follows that Labour's approach to lockdown was even more too-authoritarian.

A reasonable response, but 'accusing me of all people of cherry picking statistics is a bit rich! I could go down that route, but I won't because (a) I'm too lazy or lacking in energy to and (b) I doubt my pearls of wisdom are going to influence anyone one way or the other.

 

[edwin_m]

Really? Cherie Blair from Day One; Denis Thatcher was lampooned mercilessly; Norma Major was tied in the John and their 'dull' life. SamCam and Mary Wilson weren't let off lightly. either. Some put themselves in the limelight and get flack as a result. It goes with the position; spending a kings ransom on wallpaper did not help.

I don't recall any of them being accused of getting heavily involved in the political activities of their spouses. Carrie Johnson seems rather different has she had a significant role of her own in the Tory party, and the suspicion is that she is using her influence over her husband to continue that by other means. The comparison that springs to mind for me is Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But this isn't the place to debate Covid. The point I was trying to make in the post you replied to was that people simultaneously both accuse the Tories of being too authoritarian about Covid restrictions and demand earlier/longer/harder lockdowns. Well you can't have it both ways. *If* you think that the Tory approach to lockdown was too authoritarian (and personally I'm inclined to agree that with hindsight, it probably was), then it follows that Labour's approach to lockdown was even more too-authoritarian.

On the one hand there was the need to impose some measures that would reduce the spread of the virus, which the statistics suggest were necessary and successful in that aim. On the other was the details of what those measures were. It's reasonable to criticise some of the details without fundamentally disagreeing with the principle.

It's also interesting to consider that the people who attended the parties presumably weren't afraid of catching Covid by so doing. Logically therefore they must have believed that the measures that banned that type of gathering weren't actually necessary, in which case it's questionable why many of the same people were influential in imposing those same measures on the rest of the poulation.

 

[brad465]

According to this article in The Times, Johnson and Carrie might be warming to the idea of jumping before being pushed, claiming Johnson has been looking for US speech circuit opportunities recently:

Paralysed in No 10, are the PM and his wife ready to let it go?

For a man battling to save his premiership, Boris Johnson was upbeat towards the end of last week. “He keeps yelling ‘Onward!’ at people,” said a No 10 official. The question this weekend among staff and ministers is: to what? “It is unclear if we are heading to the sunlit uplands or the valley of d

www.thetimes.co.uk

For a man battling to save his premiership, Boris Johnson was upbeat towards the end of last week. “He keeps yelling ‘Onward!’ at people,” said a No 10 official. The question this weekend among staff and ministers is: to what? “It is unclear if we are heading to the sunlit uplands or the valley of death,” one aide said.

Many MPs and even close aides are still contemplating the end of Johnson’s time in charge after a bruising week in which he lost five senior aides and the number of MPs calling for him to resign kept rising.

I can't copy the full article due to a paywall, where others quoting this article on Twitter have stated the article contains info about the aforementioned claim.

 

[Typhoon]

I don't recall any of them being accused of getting heavily involved in the political activities of their spouses. Carrie Johnson seems rather different has she had a significant role of her own in the Tory party, and the suspicion is that she is using her influence over her husband to continue that by other means. The comparison that springs to mind for me is Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I don't disagree with what you have written. Carrie Johnson has taken a political stance, speaking at party conference events as well as being a former employee of the party. My quibble is that it appeared Kwateng was hoping for sympathy for Mrs Johnson because of the scrutiny she was put under. If a spouse of the PM makes political conference speeches and expresses particular views openly, they should expect scrutiny in the same way that, say, a junior minister gets - at the very least. Most spouses of PMs have taken the role at party conference of smiling on demand, and sitting in the front row and clapping at appropriate moments. They too have been subjected to scrutiny, although perhaps not the same amount of political scrutiny. Cherie Blair was once reported to have muttered "Well, that's a lie." while walking past a replaying of a Gordon Brown speech with four other people. That made front page news because a correspondent claims to have overheard it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5380300.stm. Nothing open, nothing on record. The media would pick up on anything and everything she did, usually in order to be critical. The press continuously sought out any of Denis Thatcher's indiscretions despite him keeping them largely (but not completely) to his circle of friends.

Carrie Johnson needs to consider what the spouses of other PMs went through, even though they were largely quiet and uncontroversial in public and think if that is what they put up with, don't you think that someone who speaks out and makes their views known - some of which are at odds with the Conservative Party rank and file - should expect more critical observations.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The way I look at it, the allegations of Carrie exerting undue influence speak more of the weakness of Johnson's character than the strength of hers

 

[MattRat]

I've been left very confused by recent events. By all accounts, Johnson should be done for, and have gone already, but the final nail seems to be missing, and everything that might be that nail turns out to be fake.

Add to that, I've noticed people bang on about resignation, not them removing him, and I'm left with only one possible conclusion, which may be wrong: They don't want to truly nail him, because people will then realize they can do it to other politicians, and that terrifies them. If Johnson resigns or say, loses a general election (the super long game), everything will remain business as usual in Westminster.

 

[brad465]

I don't know what to think with regards to this one (other than maybe being another dead cat attempt):

Boris Johnson sang 'I Will Survive' to new communications chief Guto Harri

The PM's new director of communications Guto Harri reveals how he accepted the new job in Downing Street.

www.bbc.co.uk

Boris Johnson told his new director of communications "I will survive", by singing him the lines from the Gloria Gaynor song, Guto Harri says.
The aide told Welsh language magazine Golwg 360 he saw the PM on Friday and asked him about his future.
Mr Harri was hired after a string of resignations from No 10 amid turmoil over parties held during lockdowns.
He also described his new boss as: "He's not a complete clown, he's a very likeable character."
Singing session over, Mr Harri told the Welsh language website that after "a lot of laughing", he and Mr Johnson "sat down to have a serious discussion about how to get the government back on track and how we move forward".

Mr Johnson has been under increasing pressure from his party after revelations that numerous rule-breaking gatherings were held in Downing Street during Covid lockdowns.
An initial report into the parties by senior civil servant Sue Gray said there had been "a failure of leadership", leading to the PM promising a shake-up of staff.
Mr Harri was one of the first new appointments, along with Cabinet Office Minister Steve Barclay, who has taken the chief of staff role.
Mr Johnson told reporters on Monday: "Everybody at No 10 and the Treasury are working together in harmony to deal with the big problems the country faces."
But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer reiterated his calls for the PM to resign, saying: "Nothing will really change until the person at the top changes as all routes lead to the prime minister and that's the change we need to see now."

 

[birchesgreen]

"He's not a complete clown"

High praise indeed.