No 10 rule breaking gatherings during 2020.

[brad465]

I agree with is what will, eventually, happen. I suspect there’s some way to go before we reach that point. Johnson isn’t going to give up readily, and nor is there any neat way to remove him if he doesn’t resign.

We can bet that a lot of Conservatives will be thinking the word “liability”, but how they translate that into a process which removes - and replaces - him is a significant headache.

Personally I’d pick Hunt at this point, out of a weak line-up. Part of his attraction is not having been tainted by the last two years.

If Johnson faces a no confidence vote but survives it, he's immune for a year, and he'll do a massive amount to damage to the party knowing he's got an all access pass. Some reports suggest around 30 letters have been sent to Graham Brady, and that there are more members of the party who say they're waiting for Sue Gray's report into the parties but whose minds are already made up (and are just following due process), so more letters could easily follow.

I doubt anything much will happen until the May local government results are in.

Also no one in their right mind would want to take over at a time like this. If he is defenestrated it will happen in autumn if the polls don't improve, the local election results are disastrous and if he fluffs the party conference and when Covid (and Aprils huge energy price hike) is receding into the distance.

The polls at the moment are just an opinion poll on recent events, not on who they will vote for. A similar thing occured in reverse during the year 2000 lorry blockade. The tories went about 10 points clear. The only time they did during the blair years. After it was over it faded away and Blair won a landslide.

Labours fundamental problem is that, having lost their Scottish seats, they can only govern in coalition or with the support of the SNP. That is totally toxic to the English voters and will be boldy propagandised by the tories, just as they did in the last three elections.

Recent seat projects have shown it's not out of reach for Labour and the Lib Dems to have a coalition/arrangement without any SNP support, however it would be difficult to obtain the seat numbers and for Labour to resist SNP relationship questions.

I don't think though Johnson would be allowed to lead the party conference next autumn if the local election results are not good for him/the Tories, not just because it would be clear Johnson's a liability, but because the party will want a new leader in time for the conference to give a rousing speech/overall display to help revive fortunes.

 

[Cdd89]

Personally I’d pick Hunt at this point, out of a weak line-up. Part of his attraction is not having been tainted by the last two years.

Hunt has consistently supported restrictions of various types. I can't speak for other voters, but the Conservatives should be aware that voters like me are (at present) only considering them due to their stance on restrictions. This topic surpasses all others, in my view, but on almost all other matters I would prefer opposition parties.

 

[farleigh]

Hunt has consistently supported restrictions of various types. I can't speak for other voters, but the Conservatives should be aware that voters like me are (at present) only considering them due to their stance on restrictions. This topic surpasses all others, in my view, but on almost all other matters I would prefer opposition parties.

For me the one saving grace of Carrie Boris Johnson is the recent lack of restrictions

 

[MikeWM]

If Johnson faces a no confidence vote but survives it, he's immune for a year, and he'll do a massive amount to damage to the party knowing he's got an all access pass.

...although in the end that's exactly what happened to Theresa May and it didn't help her much - she was gone well within the year. Admittedly the circumstances were rather different.

Hunt has consistently supported restrictions of various types. I can't speak for other voters, but the Conservatives should be aware that voters like me are (at present) only considering them due to their stance on restrictions. This topic surpasses all others, in my view, but on almost all other matters I would prefer opposition parties.

Yes, agreed on Hunt, beyond Gove he's probably my least favourite potential candidate, for exactly the reason that he seems very keen on all manner of restrictions. (If nothing else, he was co-author of the 'lessons learned' report in October that said we should have locked down quicker).

The only Tory MP I can think of that I'd like to see get the job is David Davis, but I suspect he won't put himself forward.

 

[dosxuk]

If Johnson faces a no confidence vote but survives it, he's immune for a year, and he'll do a massive amount to damage to the party knowing he's got an all access pass.

The year long free pass is a rule set by the 1922 committee who manage the conservative party leadership elections. They are free to change it at their own whim, and indeed, almost certainly would do, if they felt that the wider conservative party wanted such an action because of a leader who'd gone wild.

It's similar to the fixed terms parliament act, in that while it is a rule, there are plenty of ways around it and if you really wanted to scrap it, that wouldn't be an issue either.

 

[yorkie]

I doubt anything much will happen until the May local government results are in.

Also no one in their right mind would want to take over at a time like this...

True; although things are looking up due to Omicron, the reality is that the hysterical brigade still want hefty restrictions and not all the population is yet on board with getting back to normal due to the extent to which people have been made to feel fearful over the past 22 months.

As for Starmer, this wasn't a convincing performance:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1482664839717822465

I haven't broken Covid rules, says Sir Keir Starmer The Labour leader tells #SundayMorning there's "no comparison" between a picture of him drinking beer with party staff and Boris Johnson's Downing St garden drinks during lockdown

I do not believe there is much chance Starmer broke the law, but there is an argument to say they might have broken guidelines, but more information would be required to be sure.

The guidelines at the time were utterly bonkers and very confusing and open to interpretation, but Labour's position has generally been to call for even tougher (and more bonkers) guidelines and laws. Logic dictates that if you are arguing for harsher and harsher rules and you are going to attack those who could potentially be breaking the rules, you really ought to make sure you stick to the absolute letter of the guidelines yourself.

I would be much more keen to defend Starmer's position if he had been rightly calling the Government out for having such bonkers rules and if he had called for rules to be relaxed, rather than tightened.

As it is, it's a mess for which there are no real winners.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

If Johnson faces a no confidence vote but survives it, he's immune for a year, and he'll do a massive amount to damage to the party knowing he's got an all access pass. Some reports suggest around 30 letters have been sent to Graham Brady, and that there are more members of the party who say they're waiting for Sue Gray's report into the parties but whose minds are already made up (and are just following due process), so more letters could easily follow.

Her report won't be enough to indict him and that will give the waverers just now to leave that letter on their desks for the time being.

I don't think though Johnson would be allowed to lead the party conference next autumn if the local election results are not good for him/the Tories, not just because it would be clear Johnson's a liability, but because the party will want a new leader in time for the conference to give a rousing speech/overall display to help revive fortunes.

Indeed local elections will be the litmus test and whilst Tories will lose ground it will be put down to mid turn blues.

Partygate has broken too early and actually it looks like its going to force a wider policy response from the Tories than would have happened so may actually give them a bit more support than expected.

Can't stand BoJo but the opposition need a sustainable strategy to shift the electorate all there doing at the moment is taking advantage of the graft of journalists to make hay why the sun shines. That won't shift the polls at a general election.

 

[bramling]

The year long free pass is a rule set by the 1922 committee who manage the conservative party leadership elections. They are free to change it at their own whim, and indeed, almost certainly would do, if they felt that the wider conservative party wanted such an action because of a leader who'd gone wild.

It's similar to the fixed terms parliament act, in that while it is a rule, there are plenty of ways around it and if you really wanted to scrap it, that wouldn't be an issue either.

It also may not go down too well if a batch of people get thrown under the bus. This seems pretty assured - the response I received from my MP (dated December, only just received, probably due to postal delays) alludes to waiting for the inquiry, and that “the Prime Minister will ensure disciplinary action is taken against those involved”. Seems very much like a standard wording to me.

The problem is it will hack people off, which apart from looking bad, means Johnson will gain a few more enemies. It doesn’t reconcile well with the “the buck stops here” mantra when Johnson took office. Ultimately he’s not going to survive all this, it’s a case of what route gets taken to reach the destination, which is eventually going to be a replacement leader.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I do not believe there is much chance Starmer broke the law, but there is an argument to say they might have broken guidelines, but more information would be required to be sure.

The guidelines at the time were utterly bonkers and very confusing and open to interpretation, but Labour's position has generally been to call for even tougher (and more bonkers) guidelines and laws. Logic dictates that if you are arguing for harsher and harsher rules and you are going to attack those who could potentially be breaking the rules, you really ought to make sure you stick to the absolute letter of the guidelines yourself.

I would be much more keen to defend Starmer's position if he had been rightly calling the Government out for having such bonkers rules and if he had called for rules to be relaxed, rather than tightened.

And that's the problem with labour. They want to have their cake and eat it - they want to live by the sword but not die by it - they want all of the benefits but none of the drawbacks. I suppose this it what being the opposition entails, but still.

 

[brad465]

And that's the problem with labour. They want to have their cake and eat it - they want to live by the sword but not die by it - they want all of the benefits but none of the drawbacks. I suppose this it what being the opposition entails, but still.

We have a two-party system entrenched in our politics that encourages neoliberal elites to ride gravy trains during and after their political careers, all backed by oligarchs and other major party donors, thus most of Parliament is made up of a snobbish liberal elite. Nothing will change unless millions of people blockade streets for days on end, gridlock the outside of Parliament so Government can't get in let alone actually do any Governing, go on mass strikes, torch cars, burn down buildings, overwhelm police forces into submission...and if we really want to go the whole hog, guillotine all MPs at the end of it.

 

[yorkie]

Well I hope not as that would be the end of our society. There would be no winners.

I don't think things are that bad, but this is a good example of the Government creating rules which are so pointless, unjustified and difficult to interpret, understand and follow, that it's come back to bite them.

And all along during the pandemic they seemed to be egged on by Labour who seemed to be constantly keen for stricter rules, and so they shouldn't be too surprised when there are questions regarding whether they followed them to the letter.

It's not the breaking of rules, least of all if they were only guidelines broken that bothers me; it's the way they tried to restrict and scare others while they knew there was no justification for doing so.

 

[brad465]

Cassetteboy hitting the spot with this video (contains strong language):

 

[Bikeman78]

Cassetteboy hitting the spot with this video (contains strong language):

That has brightened up my afternoon!

 

[bspahh]

Jed Mercurio is going to have his work cut out to get a TV series out of an investigation by the Metropolitan police, if it stops at the point that the accused says they did nothing wrong.

Led By Donkeys have had a go. Its 4 minutes rather than a series though

(Youtube video of an interview of Boris Johnson and AC-12)

 

[david1212]

I suspect few of us are surprised that events which broke rules in places at the time rather than just guidelines occurred.

Taking my work colleagues as a very small sample overall the surprise is how many events and the scale of some. Extending a genuine meeting by no more than an hour with a glass of wine or two shared to say farewell to a long serving colleague is very different to an arranged ' bring your own drinks party ', sending a someone on a booze run with a suitcase and similar.

All think for there to have been two separate parties running late into the night the day before the funeral for the Duke
of Edinburgh was appalling.

 

[kristiang85]

All think for there to have been two separate parties running late into the night the day before the funeral for the Duke
of Edinburgh was appalling.

Especially as it now seems the government offered to exempt the Queen from some of the social distancing requirements at the funeral, and she refused saying she didn't want special treatment over the rest of the country.

 

[DelayRepay]

Especially as it now seems the government offered to exempt the Queen from some of the social distancing requirements at the funeral, and she refused saying she didn't want special treatment over the rest of the country.

Yes. Personally I don't think we should have a Queen or a Royal Family, but we do, and she's certainly shown the Government how to lead by example. And on a personal level I find that photo sad, and I think it resonates with most people who have lost a loved one during the last couple of years.

At some point, which may be soon or may not, Boris Johnson will have to go to see the Queen to tell her he wishes to resign as her Prime Minister. I wonder if she'll be able to avoid a huge smile when the moment comes.

 

[nw1]

Hunt has consistently supported restrictions of various types. I can't speak for other voters, but the Conservatives should be aware that voters like me are (at present) only considering them due to their stance on restrictions. This topic surpasses all others, in my view, but on almost all other matters I would prefer opposition parties.

Though if we are talking about a 2024 election, Covid restrictions are (presumably) not going to come into the equation, so non-Covid issues will likely be the main factors at play. In fact this puts the Tories in a weak position as (assuming they stay until 2024) they are inevitably going to get the blame for the post-Covid economic fallout.

 

[Eyersey468]

Though if we are talking about a 2024 election, Covid restrictions are (presumably) not going to come into the equation, so non-Covid issues will likely be the main factors at play. In fact this puts the Tories in a weak position as (assuming they stay until 2024) they are inevitably going to get the blame for the post-Covid economic fallout.

In terms of blame justifiably so, it is their actions that have caused the damage.

 

[island]

Especially as it now seems the government offered to exempt the Queen from some of the social distancing requirements at the funeral, and she refused saying she didn't want special treatment over the rest of the country.

Social distancing was never a matter of law in England so she didn't need exempting.

 

[kristiang85]

Social distancing was never a matter of law in England so she didn't need exempting.

So what about the funerals of people where police walked in because mourners were too close together?

 

[greyman42]

So what about the funerals of people where police walked in because mourners were too close together?

Overzealous policing. Completely unnecessary.

 

[Watershed]

Social distancing was never a matter of law in England so she didn't need exempting.

And indeed, she is literally exempt from all laws. Of course it's a matter of image and perceived propriety.

 

[Busaholic]

And indeed, she is literally exempt from all laws. Of course it's a matter of image and perceived propriety.

Regina v Regina would have been an interesting case, but she could seek advice from her Prime Minister on how to be Janus-like.

 

[brad465]

So the Police will happily give witness statements to potentially illegal acts, but not arrest anyone on suspicion of illegal acts:

Tomorrow's Papers Today - UK Front Pages - Latest Newspaper Headlines

All of UK's Tomorrow's Front Pages ✅ Updated Daily between 7PM - 11pm ✅ The Mail, Express, Times, Guardian and many more Proudly supporting #buyapaper

www.tomorrowspapers.co.uk

 

[kristiang85]

This bit is interesting:

While police officers cannot be compelled to speak to Ms Gray – unlike Downing St staff – it is understood they were “only too willing” to co-operate.

One source said on Sunday night: “Met officers have spoken to Sue Gray now, as you would expect, and have been able to provide a lot of information.”

Asked how significant the material they had disclosed was, the source added: “Put it this way, if Boris Johnson is still Prime Minister by the end of the week, I’d be very surprised.”

 

[brad465]

This bit is interesting:

Yes indeed, of course technically I would expect Johnson to remain as PM until a proper replacement is found, as with May, but he would very much be a lame duck to the point he may as well not be PM (I suspect he and Carrie will spend his final weeks trying to salvage the wallpaper).

 

[LOL The Irony]

This bit is interesting:

Only too willing to provide evidence to Sue Gray but won't investigate the government. Riiiiiiiiiiight...

 

[ainsworth74]

Only too willing to provide evidence to Sue Gray but won't investigate the government. Riiiiiiiiiiight...

I wonder if individual police officers would love to investigate but are being directed from on high not to. So when Sue Gray asks those same individuals they're more than happy to discuss in great detail their concerns. Shades of the Sarah Everard vigil perhaps where, by my understanding, the local branch of the Met was quite happy for the vigil to go ahead with suitable precautions and arrangements but it was the Met HQ that insisted it be shut down?

 

[LOL The Irony]

I wonder if individual police officers would love to investigate but are being directed from on high not to.

That was one of the angles I was coming from.