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

[Bletchleyite]

Patel is not an immigrant. She was born here.

She is from an immigrant family. Were it not for relatively recent immigration, she would not have been born here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2022 ==

Yes it’s a bad policy, for myriad reasons, and it is not made worse becuase the minister is Priti Patel.

Agreed. The fact that I think she's a hypocrite for professing it does not affect the fact that I disagree with it. They are two separate opinions. Were it for instance Theresa May who was professing it, the second opinion (of it being a bad policy) would remain as before. And if I supported the policy (I don't, but if I did) I'd still think her a hypocrite.

 

[DarloRich]

The government has dropped its amendment to the vote this afternoon and is offering Conservative MPs a free vote on the Labour motion to refer Boris Johnson to the Committee on Privileges.

 

[brad465]

Whatever Patel's views on immigration are, she is currently the least popular Cabinet member among Tory party members, so she clearly isn't doing something they approve of:

Our Cabinet League Table. Sunak plunges to third from bottom. | Conservative Home

Meanwhile, Johnson is out of negative ratings for the first time in three months - and in comparative mid-table safety.

www.conservativehome.com

 

[Lucan]

If you as an individual are an immigrant, it is rank hypocrisy to oppose immigration. So background is VERY relevant.

Every immigrant I have ever known has been somewhat anti-immigration once they are here.

Several reasons : one is that they are concerned about the rising hostility to immigrants (between different immigrant groups as well as from the "natives") that will eventually arise as the numbers increase. They (at least the earlier ones) expected to be slightly exotic members of a single British society, not just another a member of another group in a nation divided (even in conflict) by cultural and racial factions. "Despite my own background, I am uneasy about immigration" one friend (an East European immigrant, now a professor) told me, and I would not be allowed to repeat here the words a Chinese friend of mine has to say about the Woke movement.

Another reason (also expressed by the prof) is that they find the UK is not the Utopia they imagined it to be. Of course the trafficking crooks hype it up to attract their customers.

I find it ironic that many of the arguments you hear in favour of immigration (society and the economy need them etc) are the same that the Ancient Greeks and later peoples made for slavery.

Also ironic is that, being something of a outsider in personality, immigrants seem drawn to me for that reason. The above Chinese and the east European Prof are my best friends, and when I was younger I had more immigrant GFs (both white and non-white) than British ones (not all at the same time I would add).

 

[nw1]

Absolutely not, whatsoever. Couldn’t disagree more strongly. Immigrants have agency and the ability to form their own opinions. “This policy is worse because the minister is an ethnic minority woman who wouldn’t be here other than for immigration” is straight-up prejudice.

The fact that Patel’s parents immigrated and she was born here and not in Uganda is not even something she can control. It is an unchangeable, unasked-for characteristic, and it should therefore have no bearing on whether we think her policy is good or bad.

I went to a grammar school. Does that mean I should support them in the grammar/no grammar debate, lest I be called a hypocrite?

How banal and reductive to have our opinions dictated as acceptable or otherwise by others simply because of our background.

So should one not reserve special condemnation for a gay person who supports anti-gay laws, because as a gay person they should understand the issues that gay people face more than any other?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So should one not reserve special condemnation for a gay person who supports anti-gay laws, because as a gay person they should understand the issues that gay people face more than any other?

That wouldn't quite be the same, as the anti-gay laws would at least impact them (thus it wouldn't be "one rule for me, another for you"), whereas the anti-immigrant laws won't affect Patel because she's already here. I can see similarities, though.

 

[AlterEgo]

So should one not reserve special condemnation for a gay person who supports anti-gay laws, because as a gay person they should understand the issues that gay people face more than any other?

No. Just because a person is gay doesn't mean they aren't entitled to make up their own mind about whether a law is "anti gay" or not. There were gay people - often quietly religious - who were against gay marriage, which doesn't make them right, or a majority, but it does mean they have made up their own mind. The answer, as always, is simply to articulate why such a policy is good or bad instead of going after the "gay traitor hypocrites" and treating all gay people as a homogenous bloc which can only have specified opinions on some matters.

 

[Bayum]

The government has dropped its amendment to the vote this afternoon and is offering Conservative MPs a free vote on the Labour motion to refer Boris Johnson to the Committee on Privileges.

My guess is they’ve managed to speak to enough backbenchers and persuade behind the curtain that they will vote to abstain or against the motion. Will then hail themselves for allowing MPs to be free-willed with their decision-making.

 

[Dent]

The motion has passed, Johnson will now be investigated.

 

[ainsworth74]

Wasn't even an division just went through on the nod. Feels like a total collapse from the Government on this.

 

[Typhoon]

Wasn't even an division just went through on the nod. Feels like a total collapse from the Government on this.

Either Johnson is pretty confident that he will be found not to have not deliberately mislead the House (confidence which might be misplaced), or the silent majority on the Conservative back benches have not been quite so silent in private.

I wonder what the odds of him not fighting the next general election are now.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Some pretty scathing comments from a few Tory MPs, and from different wings of the party - from pro-Brexit headbanger lunatic Steve Baker to the normal servile William Wragg.

This feels like the beginning of the end

 

[mirodo]

4/7

Either Johnson is pretty confident that he will be found not to have not deliberately mislead the House (confidence which might be misplaced), or the silent majority on the Conservative back benches have not been quite so silent in private.

I wonder what the odds of him not fighting the next general election are now.

4/7 on Sky Bet.

 

[Cowley]

I just don’t know. He’s weathered plenty of things over the last couple of years and I could honestly see him getting through this as well.
His party still haven’t fully turned on him yet…

 

[Typhoon]

I just don’t know. He’s weathered plenty of things over the last couple of years and I could honestly see him getting through this as well.
His party still haven’t fully turned on him yet…

It might be whether he (or Mrs J) wants it!

 

[DanNCL]

If the committee finds Johnson guilty of lying to parliament then he will likely face a recall petition in his constituency. Not sure an Uxbridge by-election was what Boris wanted!!

 

[Typhoon]

There has been a party political on for the Conservatives fronted by Andy Street - its a repeat of that on 04/04/22. Same time - 18:55. I can't remember a repeat before. Maybe there have been, I don't watch them assiduously but this stood out because of the content (improving local public transport indeed - the day after consultation closed on potentially cutting 55 subsidised bus services or groups of services and Stagecoach announced more cuts with some services going completely in my neck of the woods), a load of drivel about 'getting on with the job' repeated parrot like.

I wonder whether there was another one which was pulled because of 'events'?

 

[nw1]

That wouldn't quite be the same, as the anti-gay laws would at least impact them (thus it wouldn't be "one rule for me, another for you"), whereas the anti-immigrant laws won't affect Patel because she's already here. I can see similarities, though.

Yes, that is a fair point - but I was considering it more from a moral perspective.

 

[Kite159]

So more taxpayer money to be wasted on another committee due to Labour's campaign to try and get rid of Boris over daring to eat cake on his birthday?

Meanwhile in the real world, the man on the Clapham omnibus couldn't give two hoots about what might have happened 2 years ago.

Well Labour did love to waste money on setting up committees when it came to dealing with problems.

 

[Tester]

So more taxpayer money to be wasted on another committee due to Labour's campaign to try and get rid of Boris over daring to eat cake on his birthday?

Meanwhile in the real world, the man on the Clapham omnibus couldn't give two hoots about what might have happened 2 years ago.

Well Labour did love to waste money on setting up committees when it came to dealing with problems.

You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £5

 

[Trog]

In some ways is the fact that the main thing the Labour party have to complain about is a party months ago, not a sort of endorsement of everything else Boris has done. As otherwise I would have thought that they would be complaining about something more substantive.

As for the element of hypocrisy and lying surely everyone knows that the way you can tell if any politician is lying to you is by checking if their lips are moving.

 

[gg1]

So more taxpayer money to be wasted on another committee due to Labour's campaign to try and get rid of Boris over daring to eat cake on his birthday?

Meanwhile in the real world, the man on the Clapham omnibus couldn't give two hoots about what might have happened 2 years ago.

Well Labour did love to waste money on setting up committees when it came to dealing with problems.

Well you're totally missing the point, it's not what he did but when he did it.

 

[Cdd89]

So more taxpayer money to be wasted on another committee due to Labour's campaign to try and get rid of Boris over daring to eat cake on his birthday?

I agree. This “cake” incident is incredibly weak and there is no evidence that Boris knowingly misled parliament over it; in fact, there is evidence that he thought (at the time) he was complying with the law. I put that down to him having shown no interest in the detail of the laws he enacted.

Other parties are a different matter, of course.

 

[dosxuk]

You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £5

Well he's definitely not that well known Labour brexiteer, Steve Baker!

 

[Mikw]

Some pretty scathing comments from a few Tory MPs, and from different wings of the party - from pro-Brexit headbanger lunatic Steve Baker to the normal servile William Wragg.

This feels like the beginning of the end

Yep, i feel Baker's speech was a bit like Geoffrey Howe back in the day. Baker is powerful with the right wing of the party and a lot of Boris's acts seems to have been to placate him and his allies. When he's had enough then it's a huge problem for Boris.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Meanwhile in the real world, the man on the Clapham omnibus couldn't give two hoots about what might have happened 2 years ago.

That's what Boris hopes is the case.

The reality? I'm not so sure. Other people didn't get to eat cake with their friends on their birthday because of Boris' laws. Other people who broke the rules got treated far more harshly than Boris. I'm not convinced people forget or forgive that easily. Certainly my Brexity friends in the North East haven't.

You have two groups Boris has to placate: those who supported the restrictions and think Boris to be a granny killer, and those who hated the restrictions but grudgingly complied, and now feel like a mug for doing so.

I put that down to him having shown no interest in the detail of the laws he enacted.

Boris is not stupid. He likes to pretend he is when he gets caught out.

He knew what the rules were. He just didn't think they should apply to him because he's special. This is not new, he's always been like this.

As otherwise I would have thought that they would be

A Prime Minister admitting to breaking a law he himself enacted is pretty substantive. And for all the wibble, in accepting the fine he's accepted the fact he broke the law.

He’s weathered plenty of things over the last couple of years and I could honestly see him getting through this as well.

I can't, but the Tories will only defenestrate him when there's a suitable time to do so.

At the moment the Tories are imposing the highest taxes on people since WWII, there's a huge cost of living crisis, and Brexit is a disaster. They're going to leave him in post until everything calms down, so that a year out from the next election they can throw him under the bus and blame him for everything. That's what the Tories do to each other; they even did it to their beloved Thatcher.

It's also really worth noting that Partygate happily distracts attention from the fact that the Tories are charging people the highest taxes since WWII.

 

[dosxuk]

That's what Boris hopes is the case.

The reality? I'm not so sure. Other people didn't get to eat cake with their friends on their birthday because of Boris' laws. Other people who broke the rules got treated far more harshly than Boris. I'm not convinced people forget or forgive that easily. Certainly my Brexity friends in the North East haven't.

You have two groups Boris has to placate: those who supported the restrictions and think Boris to be a granny killer, and those who hated the restrictions but grudgingly complied, and now feel like a mug for doing so.

When people talk about political stories having "cut through" to the general public, they don't normally mean it anywhere near as clearly as in this case. There really are only a few people who aren't at least mildly annoyed at Johnson's behaviour, and the majority of those are people who would let him get away with anything because he "got brexit done" (and there's a fair few of the mildly annoyed who're in that same camp and keeping quiet).

Senior, well known, Tory MPs claiming the heartfelt apologies only go as far as the next closed door aren't helping this either. Steve Baker has all but literally said today that Johnson will say whatever is needed to get rid of problems and tell people what they want to hear, but he means none of it. It's a claim that his supporters have always dismissed out of hand, but he's getting called out, on the parliamentary record no less, for doing it now by someone who was a close ally.

The fact that the overall message from big dog this week has been "I'm not as bad as Putin" pretty much sums up how badly things have worked out. If whataboutism is your only defence, you've already lost the argument.

 

[Trog]

I can't, but the Tories will only defenestrate him when there's a suitable time to do so.

Is that what people call a window of opportunity?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is that what people call a window of opportunity?

Boom tish

Steve Baker has all but literally said today that Johnson will say whatever is needed to get rid of problems and tell people what they want to hear, but he means none of it.

The problem is that, with Boris, the lies are already priced in. Everyone- even his supporters- knows he's an amoral liar. He always has been. Just ask his ex-wives. People expect him to lie, so the fact he's a liar doesn't impact on him.

An added bonus is that, because he lies all the time, he's able to persuade people that all the other politicians lie all the time too. So, again, his lies don't impact him. Sadly it also corrodes our democracy, but he doesn't care about that either.

Slagging off the Archbishop of Canterbury is a new low, mind. That might well cut to the Christian heartland. Slagging off the BBC might backfire too; surely the BBC will realise that sucking up to him isn't going to protect them from him and, with Kuenssberg leaving, they might stop soft-soaping him all the time.

 

[DarloRich]

Steve Baker has all but literally said today that Johnson will say whatever is needed to get rid of problems and tell people what they want to hear, but he means none of it. It's a claim that his supporters have always dismissed out of hand, but he's getting called out, on the parliamentary record no less, for doing it now by someone who was a close ally

I think things must be pretty bad if Steve "Brexit hard man" Baker is calling you out. That seems like something worse than the usual malcontents having a dig.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Apr 2022 ==

The problem is that, with Boris, the lies are already priced in. Everyone- even his supporters- knows he's an amoral liar. He always has been. Just ask his ex-wives. People expect him to lie, so the fact he's a liar doesn't impact on him.

The issue is that I think the lies are starting to unravel a bit. MP's are seeing the polls and reading what is coming into their inbox and mail bag from some pretty pi$$ed off constituents and starting to get twitchy. Funny I haven't heard from my MP yet.........................