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

[Typhoon]

Totally agree re: abstentions. Can't answer your question about whether or not he can vote for himself, though.

I suspect there will be a few - don't want to rebel but want to see him gone.

 

[dosxuk]

Remember there's also one Tory MP who is able to vote today simply because taking the whip away after the serious allegations against them would identify them.

 

[Bayum]

Some of the letter writers could be his supporters to force the contest now (before the by elections) - he's more likely to win now than later and if he wins he's theoretically safe for a year.

Yep. Exactly my point above. Save him now BEFORE the crushing by-election defeats when a motion of no confidence can’t be put forward.

 

[Busaholic]

John Penrose, MP, Tsar on Anti-Corruption, has resigned from the post, indicating that Johnson not only should have stood down following Sue Gray's report, but was clearly required to do so by the Ministerial Code.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm certainly no fan of Johnson - and the best I can say about his handling of the last two-and-a-bit years is 'most other countries, incredibly, did even worse' - but I find it hard to see how any alternative is likely to be 'better' at this point, and many of the possible options would appear to be rather worse in most regards.

At some point we're going to have to come to terms with the fact that most of politics has shifted from 'vote for us and we'll make your life better' to 'vote for us and we'll try to slow down things falling to pieces'. Until then, politicians who promise that things can be better - even if their promises are transparently nonsense - will continue to gain traction, and understandably so. Hence the success of Brexit, Trump, and Johnson - and indeed Corbyn in 2017. You do need inspiration and hope from your political leaders (and much as I hate to admit it, Blair as opposition leader had the power to inspire, for example, in a way you can't begin to imagine from Starmer. It is no accident that 'things can only get better' was Labour's song in 1997).

I do also find it very problematic that we appear to be in an era now where once the media decide they don't like you personally, they will just keep on and on about fairly minor things or things beyond the control of the individual, over and over, until they 'get their way'. We saw that with Corbyn, and now we're seeing it with Johnson. There were all manner of policy-related reasons to be critical of both, but we don't actually debate policies anymore, we debate personalities and process. I feel I have to say - when we're facing massive, life-changing important issues - that I find this a remarkably tedious way to run a country.

As an aside, I would point out we've never found out who took the photos of 'Partygate', or why they were leaked when they were, many months after they happened. And, objectively speaking, isn't it a little odd that the press don't seem remotely interested in that either?

 

[brad465]

The BBC is suggesting that Dorries tweets have so incensed a number of wavering Tory MPs that they are leaning towards the anti-Johnson camp. But what else does expect from the worst of a poor lot?

I can’t see Johnson going unless he has to: if he wins by just one vote that will be enough for him to justify (to himself) staying on. He doesn’t have any trustworthy, reliable sounding board to give him dispassionate advice, in the way that Thatcher had Denis.

She has provided some great entertainment so far today.

 

[MikeWM]

Here's part of the electorate that actually matters here : the (remaining) Tory Party membership.


(pic: YouGov poll detailing Tory Party members choice for next Conservative leader).

Well, I'm *incredibly* excited by the prospect of any of those 10 being the next Prime Minister.

(And yes, I know, a YouGov snap poll, so it doesn't really mean much. But... ugh).

 

[najaB]

I'm certainly no fan of Johnson - and the best I can say about his handling of the last two-and-a-bit years is 'most other countries, incredibly, did even worse' - but I find it hard to see how any alternative is likely to be 'better' at this point, and many of the possible options would appear to be rather worse in most regards.

Is "he's better than the alternatives" really a valid basis for keeping a proven liar and criminal in No 10?

As an aside, I would point out we've never found out who took the photos of 'Partygate', or why they were leaked when they were, many months after they happened. And, objectively speaking, isn't it a little odd that the press don't seem remotely interested in that either?

The press more than likely do know, but does who reported the crime really matter more than the fact a crime was committed? This isn't like a smear campaign where someone is leaking "embarrassing but not criminal" information.

 

[MikeWM]

Is "he's better than the alternatives" really a valid basis for keeping a proven liar and criminal in No 10?

No, but I'd argue 'proven liar and criminal' isn't a reason to get rid either. It isn't up to me in the slightest whether he stays or goes, but like it or not, it wasn't exactly a secret that he was a liar and an opportunist when people voted to put him in to No 10 in December 2019. And the Darius Guppy tape, for one, was well-known too, so that pretty much covers the not-exactly-following-the-law angle. As I said, just like Trump. People overlooked this because he promised to do something they really wanted, and the opposition (thanks largely to Keir Starmer and his forcing through the issue of a second referendum) was no longer doing so. Democracy is a mess, but it is a mess all around at this point - it increasingly feels like a rapidly-accelerating decline to me, which is highly problematic, but I don't see anyone offering an alternative.

The press more than likely do know, but does who reported the crime really matter more than the fact a crime was committed? This isn't like a smear campaign where someone is leaking "embarrassing but not criminal" information.

In most cases the photographer was there too... But yes, the timing and the identity do matter. There is clearly a concerted push to remove Johnson from the PM job. I'd like to know why and who they want to put in place instead. It may turn out to be wise to be more wary of that agenda (see : Jeremy Hunt) than of Johnson remaining in power, and if we had some information, it may be easier to judge.

 

[dosxuk]

In most cases the photographer was there too... But yes, the timing and the identity do matter. There is clearly a concerted push to remove Johnson from the PM job. I'd like to know why and who they want to put in place instead. It may turn out to be wise to be more wary of that agenda (see : Jeremy Hunt) than of Johnson remaining in power, and if we had some information, it may be easier to judge.

In some of the cases it has been stated that the photos were taken by No 10's official photographer. Those photos will have been shared with a number of people as part of their day-to-day job. The media is unlikely to be sharing who has given them the pictures, as that would cut off the supply pretty much instantly - but it does not mean that the photographer is the person who shared them with the press.

 

[nw1]

Something tells me Nadine Dorries didn't get the memo (or took it too far) with this attack on Jeremy Hunt:

https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1533763405844185088

This is not supposed to be a defence of Dorries or Johnson - but - did Hunt really recommend that people be forcibly removed from their homes and taken to isolation hotels if they tested positive for Covid?

If Dorries' claim is true, then I take back everything I have said about him being better than Johnson - in fact it makes him even worse than Johnson. That is the sort of authoritarian extremism one would expect from Xi Jinping or the Soviet Union.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2022 ==

Here's part of the electorate that actually matters here : the (remaining) Tory Party membership.

View attachment 115812
(pic: YouGov poll detailing Tory Party members choice for next Conservative leader).

Well, I'm *incredibly* excited by the prospect of any of those 10 being the next Prime Minister.

(And yes, I know, a YouGov snap poll, so it doesn't really mean much. But... ugh).

So the top 3 are: an anonymous nobody whose face I can't picture and whose policies I know nothing about; a "Britannia Unchained"-er; and someone who allegedly (according to Ms Dorries, anyway) has had extreme hardline Covid policies in the past. Oh joy

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is "he's better than the alternatives" really a valid basis for keeping a proven liar and criminal in No 10?

The press more than likely do know, but does who reported the crime really matter more than the fact a crime was committed? This isn't like a smear campaign where someone is leaking "embarrassing but not criminal" information.

Incidentally, what was the sentence handed down by the judge against the perpetrator of the referred-to crime?

 

[jfollows]

Well, that's interesting, Boris Johnson addressed his MPs in order to persuade some of them to vote for him. When asked about the conduct described in the Sue Grey report, Boris Johnson told MPs: "I'd do it again", according to Patrick Maguire from the Times (https://twitter.com/patrickkmaguire...on-confidence-vote-graham-brady-tory-mps-live). That's hardly going to persuade someone on the fence to think that his "humbly" apologising last week was meant, is it?

 

[MikeWM]

In some of the cases it has been stated that the photos were taken by No 10's official photographer. Those photos will have been shared with a number of people as part of their day-to-day job. The media is unlikely to be sharing who has given them the pictures, as that would cut off the supply pretty much instantly - but it does not mean that the photographer is the person who shared them with the press.

I didn't realise some of the pictures originated from the official photographer! Interesting and bizarre. But to the latter point - I'm sure in the past you'd have part of the media eagerly printing the photographs, and quite rightly not revealing the source, but *other* parts of the media (something like Private Eye, back when it did such things) may actually have investigated who. And why.

If I had photographs of the prime minister breaking the law, I'd want them published immediately, or never. I don't see why I'd sit on them for 18 months and then publish them - unless I had an ulterior motive. I think it is very much in our interest to find out what that motive may be.

---

This is not supposed to be a defence of Dorries or Johnson - but - did Hunt really recommend that people be forcibly removed from their homes and taken to isolation hotels if they tested positive for Covid?

It seems likely. The timing of this supposed conversation is similar to that of the video that surfaced recently showing his praise for Chinese zero-Covid policies.

So the top 3 are: an anonymous nobody whose face I can't picture and whose policies I know nothing about; a "Britannia Unchained"-er; and someone who allegedly (according to Ms Dorries, anyway) has had extreme hardline Covid policies in the past. Oh joy

It doesn't get a lot better further down either! But then the only people I'd remotely welcome would probably be Graham Brady - who won't win if he stands - and David Davis, who won't stand.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So the top 3 are: an anonymous nobody whose face I can't picture and whose policies I know nothing about; a "Britannia Unchained"-er; and someone who allegedly (according to Ms Dorries, anyway) has had extreme hardline Covid policies in the past. Oh joy

I am quite amused to hear the word "Britannia" now being used as a derogatory term. Perhaps a ban should be imposed on the singing of "Rule Britannia" at the Last Night of the Proms at the Royal Albert Hall.

 

[DelayRepay]

This is not supposed to be a defence of Dorries or Johnson - but - did Hunt really recommend that people be forcibly removed from their homes and taken to isolation hotels if they tested positive for Covid?

If Dorries' claim is true, then I take back everything I have said about him being better than Johnson - in fact it makes him even worse than Johnson. That is the sort of authoritarian extremism one would expect from Xi Jinping or the Soviet Union.

I agree if he did say that, it's disgraceful, especially when this conversation apparently took place in July 2020 when we had a reasonable understanding of how to manage the virus. A similar comment in March 2020 may have been more forgivable, given our limited understanding of the virus at that time.

But who knows what he actually said. Unless he confirms it, or there is a recording of the conversation, I would not trust Dorries' recollection to be accurate. This is after all the woman who stated that 96% of consultation respondents supported privatising Channel 4 when the truth is 96% opposed it.

 

[jfollows]

John Stevens from the Daily Mail said on the World at One that Theresa May had received endorsements from more than 50% of her MP electorate by then (1pm) on the day of her no-confidence vote, whereas at a similar time today he calculates that Boris has only received 90 public endorsements, or about 25% of the voting MPs.

By 5:13pm, John Stevens reckons Boris is still 50 short of public endorsements, that's to say he needs the votes of 50 more MPs who haven't come out publicly so far.

 

[Busaholic]

Totally agree re: abstentions. Can't answer your question about whether or not he can vote for himself, though.

He can vote for himself, just as he can in a General Election. The Tory rules should be changed so that if fewer than 65% of eligible voters, or 60% of actual voters, back the leader of that party in a vote of confidence then an election for a leader should follow. That would not prevent the incumbent standing again. How long before Johnson scarpers to the USA. perhaps to Florida or Texas?

 

[DelayRepay]

I didn't realise some of the pictures originated from the official photographer! Interesting and bizarre.

In a strange way, this actually supports Johnson's claim that he thought the events he attended complied with the rules. After all, why would anyone invite an official government photographer to create a permanent and discoverable record of themselves committing crimes?

 

[nw1]

I am quite amused to hear the word "Britannia" now being used as a derogatory term. Perhaps a ban should be imposed on the singing of "Rule Britannia" at the Last Night of the Proms at the Royal Albert Hall.

Nothing to do with that, as I am sure you know.

 

[Busaholic]

In a strange way, this actually supports Johnson's claim that he thought the events he attended complied with the rules. After all, why would anyone invite an official government photographer to create a permanent and discoverable record of themselves committing crimes?

Many criminals make a photographic record of their crimes, evidence of their narcissism and arrogance, stupidity too in some cases!

 

[MikeWM]

I agree if he did say that, it's disgraceful, especially when this conversation apparently took place in July 2020 when we had a reasonable understanding of how to manage the virus. A similar comment in March 2020 may have been more forgivable, given our limited understanding of the virus at that time.

But who knows what he actually said. Unless he confirms it, or there is a recording of the conversation, I would not trust Dorries' recollection to be accurate. This is after all the woman who stated that 96% of consultation respondents supported privatising Channel 4 when the truth is 96% opposed it.

I agree, but in this case it appears likely. There's the video from around this time where he expresses support for Chinese zero-Covid measures. Remind me how well that worked in the end in China?

In February 2021, he was calling for lockdown to continue until cases were under 1000 a day (!) and then to apply South Korea-style intensive contact tracing. Remind me how well that worked in the end in South Korea?

Later in 2021, he headed the committee that published that report that says we should have locked down sooner in March 2020, introduced mandatory masks sooner, etc. etc. I recall a number of times he called for more and more testing. He also supported 'plan B' in December.

Those of us who have argued against lockdowns and the rest should be appalled at the idea that he might become PM. On this issue, he's effectively Starmer in a Tory hat.

 

[nw1]

He can vote for himself, just as he can in a General Election. The Tory rules should be changed so that if fewer than 65% of eligible voters, or 60% of actual voters, back the leader of that party in a vote of confidence then an election for a leader should follow. That would not prevent the incumbent standing again. How long before Johnson scarpers to the USA. perhaps to Florida or Texas?

He may go there, indeed I suspect he'll be welcomed at Mar-a-Lago, but sadly for us (though perhaps fortunately for Americans), as we've already discussed he can't stand for presidency there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On this issue, he's effectively Starmer in a Tory hat.

I would be interested in viewing such an image. Is there anyone on this website gifted in political lampooning who could put such an image on this thread for all of us to enjoy....

 

[najaB]

No, but I'd argue 'proven liar and criminal' isn't a reason to get rid either. It isn't up to me in the slightest whether he stays or goes, but like it or not, it wasn't exactly a secret that he was a liar and an opportunist when people voted to put him in to No 10 in December 2019.

There's a difference between the all politicians lie and what Johnson has done though. He has more than his fair share of the former, and that wouldn't be enough to say that he should go, but when it comes to specific, provable, facts and where he was given numerous opportunities to correct the record but he proceeded to continue to lie, and was eventually proved to have broken the law then his position is simply untenable.

Why should anybody listen to or believe anything he says ever again?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2022 ==

Incidentally, what was the sentence handed down by the judge against the perpetrator of the referred-to crime?

It was one for which a fixed penalty notice was considered to be suitable punishment. The fact that he didn't challenge the fine and have his day in court is admission of guilt.

 

[Bayum]

Sunak has admitted, albeit after everyone sussed it out, that the additional money to support rising bill costs will be paid on a per-property basis. Therefore, someone who owns a number of properties will be eligible for the payment*properties owned.

 

[edwin_m]

Mmm, I suppose a tie is possible, then what? Penalties??!

Fixed penalties!

Remember there's also one Tory MP who is able to vote today simply because taking the whip away after the serious allegations against them would identify them.

Apparently he can vote by proxy.

 

[Bayum]

BBC reporting the leader of the Scottish conservatives has voted against Boris Johnson.

Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross has said he will vote against Boris Johnson in this evening's confidence motion.

This is the second time Mr Ross has changed his position on the future of the PM.

He has completed a double U-turn tonight.

In January he was in the sack Boris Johnson camp.

He was one of the first and most prominent figures in the Conservative Party to say that Boris Johnson's position had become untenable and that he should go.

He put in a letter calling for the sort of vote that's under way.

But he withdrew that letter, changed his position and decided he would, after all, continue to back Boris Johnson when war broke out in Ukraine, arguing that stability was more important than anything during an international crisis.

Now he has flipped position again and decided that given that there is a confidence vote he is not able in good faith to support Boris Johnson.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

There's a difference between the all politicians lie and what Johnson has done though. He has more than his fair share of the former, and that wouldn't be enough to say that he should go, but when it comes to specific, provable, facts and where he was given numerous opportunities to correct the record but he proceeded to continue to lie, and was eventually proved to have broken the law then his position is simply untenable.

Why should anybody listen to or believe anything he says ever again?

Well the sycophantic tory MPs will so its immaterial

 

[najaB]

Well the sycophantic tory MPs will so its immaterial

I think, more than anybody, they know not to believe a word that comes out of his mouth!