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

[DarloRich]

Could you explain which bit of us being in the middle of an international crisis situation you consider to be 'nonsense'? Have I by some chance been imagining all those headlines from the last 6 weeks about a certain country in Europe not that far from the UK having been invaded by the same country that has in the past carried out chemical/nuclear attacks on UK soil?

What's nonsense is using that as an excuse to support Johnson. Are you actually saying that because there is a war that we are not directly involved in happening somewhere that the PM should not be replaced? What will happen if he is replaced at this time?

How Neville Chamberlain must have wished he had people like you around in 1941.

 

[68000]

And realistically, the Ukraine situation is more important. If we'd known 4 months ago what we know today, then I'd have been saying, yes, Boris must resign, his position is untenable. But he didn't, and we are now in an international crisis situation which Boris and the Government generally seem to be handling reasonably well (other than the issue of visas for Ukrainian refugees for which there are serious problems). The last thing you want to be doing in these circumstances is getting into a major change-the-prime-minister distraction - especially when doing so would involve a full ballot of Conservative members, leaving a potential power vacuum for at least a month or so.

My suspicion is that most Tory MPs are going to feel the same way, which probably means Boris is safe for the foreseeable future, since by the time the Ukraine crisis is over and it becomes reasonable to have a leadership contest, the memories of partygate will have sunk into history. It's not ideal but it's how things work. You have to deal with the situation as it is today, not with what should've happened (but didn't) several months ago.

Johnson is a pathological liar and I would not trust him to protect UK interests in any crisis. His whole team are liars and need to go

 

[bspahh]

What's nonsense is using that as an excuse to support Johnson. Are you actually saying that because there is a war that we are not directly involved in happening somewhere that the PM should not be replaced? What will happen if he is replaced at this time?

How Neville Chamberlain must have wished he had people like you around in 1941.

Neville Chamberlain died in November 1940 ...

(I think Johnson and Sunak should resign)

 

[DarloRich]

Neville Chamberlain died in November 1940 ...

I am so annoyed I have gone date blind

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What's nonsense is using that as an excuse to support Johnson. Are you actually saying that because there is a war that we are not directly involved in happening somewhere that the PM should not be replaced? What will happen if he is replaced at this time?

How Neville Chamberlain must have wished he had people like you around in 1941.

Trying to compare with Neville Chamberlain is frankly daft. The issue with Chamberlain was largely that he had apparently severely mismanaged our dealings with Germany - and therefore - in the eyes of many people - was incompetent to lead the UK through the crisis at hand.

By contrast, you're talking about getting Johnson to resign over an issue (partygate) that is not only irrelevant to Ukraine, but which - appalling though it seemed to many of us at the time - is frankly trivial compared to the matter of peace across Europe being threatened by a large autocracy whose troops are apparently raping, mutilating and torturing innocent civilians by the score. If the issue was that Johnson was proving to be incompetent at handling the Ukraine crisis, then yes, there would be a very good case for finding a quick replacement. But that's not the case - indeed, it seems in no small part thanks to the actions of the UK Government under the current PM that Ukraine has been able to defend itself as much as it has.

Look for a moment at what you're suggesting: You're basically arguing that, in the middle of an international crisis, a Prime Minister who's proven pretty effective at dealing with that crisis should go, leaving potential instability and lack of leadership for what could be a couple of months right at the time when we (and Ukraine) need that leadership. And why? Because some time ago that Prime Minister apparently lied about attending a couple of parties. Do you really think that is remotely sensible or proportionate given the current situation?

 

[DarloRich]

Do you really think that is remotely sensible or proportionate given the current situation?

Yes - why don't you?

Johnson broke the law he made. The law we all followed. The law we followed at personal cost and the law that meant we didn't see loved ones or friends for months. The law that meant we weren't even able to see some of those loved ones put in the ground or comfort them at thier end.

You may be prepared to make excuses for the man. I am not. He should go. Now.

 

[bspahh]

Trying to compare with Neville Chamberlain is frankly daft. The issue with Chamberlain was largely that he had apparently severely mismanaged our dealings with Germany - and therefore - in the eyes of many people - was incompetent to lead the UK through the crisis at hand.

By contrast, you're talking about getting Johnson to resign over an issue (partygate) that is not only irrelevant to Ukraine, but which - appalling though it seemed to many of us at the time - is frankly trivial compared to the matter of peace across Europe being threatened by a large autocracy whose troops are apparently raping, mutilating and torturing innocent civilians by the score. If the issue was that Johnson was proving to be incompetent at handling the Ukraine crisis, then yes, there would be a very good case for finding a quick replacement. But that's not the case - indeed, it seems in no small part thanks to the actions of the UK Government under the current PM that Ukraine has been able to defend itself as much as it has.

Look for a moment at what you're suggesting: You're basically arguing that, in the middle of an international crisis, a Prime Minister who's proven pretty effective at dealing with that crisis should go, leaving potential instability and lack of leadership for what could be a couple of months right at the time when we (and Ukraine) need that leadership. And why? Because some time ago that Prime Minister apparently lied about attending a couple of parties. Do you really think that is remotely sensible or proportionate given the current situation?

Johnson should have known that he was doing something that broke the rules that he was responsible for setting. If he didn't know that, then that is a reason for him to go.

If it was just his inaccurate moral compass, then he might have got away with an apology.

However, he doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on the lies. That is why he has to go. He is not fit to hold office.

 

[dgl]

Plus I wonder how involved personally Boris is with Russia and if they might have a fair bit of dirt on he that he'd rather we not find out about, not someone we want making the decisions.

 

[birchesgreen]

He needs to resign, he can remain in post until his replacement takes over if people feel his amazing military leadership is important.

 

[Typhoon]

You know you are in trouble when one of the first people to defend you is Michael Fabricant

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-61085282

A Conservative MP has said Boris Johnson behaved like teachers and nurses in the pandemic, who would go back to the staff room and drink during lockdown.

missing the point that nurses and teachers did not make up the rules. The cabinet should have been setting an example, not following others. And I am assuming that he has proof. (Also nurses were probably drowning their sorrows because they couldn't get effective PPE and teachers spent a lot of the time teaching online, I don't think there were any rules about virtual staffrooms).

 

[johncrossley]

Do you really think that is remotely sensible or proportionate given the current situation?

Just to clarify, should he resign once the Ukraine crisis is over, or is it OK for him to use the Ukraine situation to allow him to stay in his position until sufficient time has passed so that fewer people are angry about his blatant law breaking, meaning he will be able to ride it out anyway?

 

[jfollows]

Telegraph reports that Boris is going to pay and not contest. His wife has already paid hers.

Boris himself confirms he’s paid as part of an apology which would have been more suitable months ago.

 

[brad465]

Those who say he shouldn't resign during the Ukraine crisis should note that France are holding a Presidential election right now.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Because some time ago that Prime Minister apparently lied about attending a couple of parties. Do you really think that is remotely sensible or proportionate given the current situation?

Because the prime minister:

• Broke the law.
• Knew he broke the law because he was the one who made the rules that became law.
• Lied to Parliament about breaking the law.
• Lied to the general public about breaking the law.

It doesn't matter what the law was, that isn't the real issue. The issue is that he has continued to lie about it (and yes he has lied - time and time again, there is no "apparently" about it). Misleading Parliament (which is the polite way of saying lied to Parliament) is usually taken very seriously and usually means the minister resigns or is sacked. Why should Johnson get away with it? Other politicians / people involved in setting the rules who were later found to have broken them resigned (the Scottish chief medical officer is the one I can remember off the top of my head), so again why should the PM get away with it when others didn't?

 

[Iskra]

Boris Johnson ought to resign, but he is a man with no shame, no obvious successor and no credible opposition, so he will continue to cling-on as he has through catastrophe after catastrophe. His endurance is remarkable, but equally disappointing.

I yearn for a leader with actual policies.

 

[Meole]

The covid rules were intended to help the general population not to stop small quiet parties held by sensible people surely ?
30 people for a relatively short gathering most of whom were in daily contact without masks is hardily significant.

 

[bspahh]

Meanwhile on Twitter:

Susie Dent @susie_dent

Word of the day is 'maw-worm' (19th century): one who insists that they have done nothing wrong, despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[Gathursty]

I'm glad I voted Tory instead of Labour because every day is bringing a new low in British politics that I don't even think Corbyn could have achieved.

 

[skyhigh]

The covid rules were intended to help the general population not to stop small quiet parties held by sensible people surely ?
30 people for a relatively short gathering most of whom were in daily contact without masks is hardily significant.

The rules, as written at the time, were clear that parties were not permitted. That the people who made those rules didn't follow them (and then lied time and time again) is fairly significant - for a significant amount of the population anyway.

 

[Cdd89]

Obviously he shouldn’t have broken his own laws. He is either a hypocrite, or an idiot who didn’t realise the severity of what he signed into law, and for either of those reasons should go.

However, I don’t think the gatherings were remotely immoral and do not buy into that side of the narrative at all. The law being wrong (such that those who wrote it couldn’t follow it) is the bigger concern to me.

 

[GS250]

Let him get judged at election time. The electorate can humiliate him completely if they feel that strongly about it.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

The rules, as written at the time, were clear that parties were not permitted. That the people who made those rules didn't follow them (and then lied time and time again) is fairly significant - for a significant amount of the population anyway.

I guess the different reactions depends on whether people value honesty and integrity in leadership or not.

 

[Iskra]

Obviously he shouldn’t have broken his own laws. He is either a hypocrite, or an idiot who didn’t realise the severity of what he signed into law, and for either of those reasons should go.

However, I don’t think the gatherings were remotely immoral and do not buy into that side of the narrative at all. The law being wrong (such that those who wrote it couldn’t follow it) is the bigger concern to me.

The queen mourned her husband -observing the rules- the day after. Holding any form of party a that time as a serving PM was at least disrespectful as well as reckless and hypocritical. Remember that at this time people were being accosted by police over much lesser rule-breaking.

 

[Struner]

Alex Johnson is a compulsive liar.
If you want to keep the man on as FM you may well wonder what he could be lying about next time?

 

[Cdd89]

The queen mourned her husband -observing the rules- the day after.

The FPN relates to the internal work event on 19 June 2020. Most people I know were pretty flexible with the rules by then; and rightly so. I can’t see any justification for such restrictions still having been in place at that point in time.

Again, I will readily concede that Johnson is either a hypocrite / coward, or an idiot (take your pick!).

 

[birchesgreen]

What a wonderful precedent has been set if he doesn't lose his job over this, i wonder what crimes future PMs will be allowed to get away with.

 

[brad465]

What a wonderful precedent has been set if he doesn't lose his job over this, i wonder what crimes future PMs will be allowed to get away with.

Or what the public in general can get away with...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I guess the different reactions depends on whether people value honesty and integrity in leadership or not.

No, I would say it depends on how good your sense of priorities is: How well you are able to judge which is more important... someone lying about attending a party, or an invading army pillaging, mass raping women, killing civilians, and generally threatening peace in Europe. Personally I think the invading army is a more important issue to deal with. But it seems that quite a few posters here think that a couple of parties are more important...

 

[The Ham]

Trying to compare with Neville Chamberlain is frankly daft. The issue with Chamberlain was largely that he had apparently severely mismanaged our dealings with Germany - and therefore - in the eyes of many people - was incompetent to lead the UK through the crisis at hand.

By contrast, you're talking about getting Johnson to resign over an issue (partygate) that is not only irrelevant to Ukraine, but which - appalling though it seemed to many of us at the time - is frankly trivial compared to the matter of peace across Europe being threatened by a large autocracy whose troops are apparently raping, mutilating and torturing innocent civilians by the score. If the issue was that Johnson was proving to be incompetent at handling the Ukraine crisis, then yes, there would be a very good case for finding a quick replacement. But that's not the case - indeed, it seems in no small part thanks to the actions of the UK Government under the current PM that Ukraine has been able to defend itself as much as it has.

Look for a moment at what you're suggesting: You're basically arguing that, in the middle of an international crisis, a Prime Minister who's proven pretty effective at dealing with that crisis should go, leaving potential instability and lack of leadership for what could be a couple of months right at the time when we (and Ukraine) need that leadership. And why? Because some time ago that Prime Minister apparently lied about attending a couple of parties. Do you really think that is remotely sensible or proportionate given the current situation?

Well it's a good job that there's no allegations of Russian money funding the Tories, oh wait yes there is and fairly substantial amounts in a fairly short timeframe:

Liz Truss Denies Huge Donations To Tory Party From Russia Are 'Damaging'

The foreign secretary said she was not "embarrassed" about being pictured with Russian donors either.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

The Tories have also received almost £2 million in donations from people with links to Russia since Boris Johnson became prime minister in 2019.

This money benefitted deputy prime minister Dominic Raab and chancellor Rishi Sunak along with five other MPs who are attending cabinet.

 

[muz379]

No, I would say it depends on how good your sense of priorities are: How well you are able to judge which is more important... someone lying about attending a party, or an invading army pillaging, mass raping women, killing civilians, and generally threatening peace in Europe. Personally I think the invading army is a more important issue to deal with. But it seems that quite a few posters here think that a couple of parties are more important...

And what damage would be done by replacing a prime minister during that . It is not as if we are actively involved in combat in that war .

Sanctions and all the actual detail are drawn up by civil servants and will continue to be regardless of who prime minister is .