• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
That puts me well up in the politician stakes, as you will have seen how politicians respond to questioning during TV interviews. There was a prime example on the BBC morning programme when Charlie Stayt was trying to get Rishi Sunak to give information live on that programme prior to it first being announced in the House of Commons.

However, at 77, I am too old to make new career in politics, but am happy to be a back-bencher on this website.
Ref my post #2657, and your reply at post #2660, I was catching up on this week's BBC Radio 4 'Today in Parliament' podcast this morning. I noted the explicit question posed in the chamber on how many of the instances of abuse of Downing Street security and cleaning staff came from politically appointed SpAds, and how many of them had been subject to appropriate disciplinary proceedings as a result. I further noted that the government representative declined to provide a direct answer to the question.

I also note that a prominent Conservative MP not too distant from my part of the world has this evening expressed doubts about his re-election prospects

If the Tories are to win the next election, Boris has to go
I cannot accept that the PM did not know what was happening in No 10 in partygate. He has lost the public’s trust
Sir Bob Neill MP is Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst and chairman of the Justice select committee.

This is a fairly leafy and prosperous part of the world (probably not dissimilar from Prestbury and Wilmslow) and I wonder if the following comment raises any alarm bells?

Bromley is traditionally a suburban Conservative heartland. It voted overwhelmingly for Boris in the London mayoral elections of 2008 and 2012. Indeed, in 2012, the weight of votes from our borough alone exceeded his overall winning margin. But in the council elections in May, the message was very different. The Conservatives lost seats and votes across the borough. Areas which had been blue for as long as we can remember turned against us. Repeatedly, the message I got on the doorstep and in my emails was that our Conservative council was doing a good job, but they could not support us under Boris’s leadership


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/27/tories-win-next-election-boris-has-go/
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
It seems that this change to the Ministerial Code was recommended by The Committee on Standards in Public Life.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...Standards_in_Public_Life_-_Web_Accessible.pdf

On page 56:

Whilst that is the case, the way it has been communicated has been done poorly.

For example, if there were examples given of the sort of minor beaches which wouldn't be expected to resign. As clearly there must be some example where something happened where a resignation which happened was seen as disproportionate; cutting some of these would have set the tone.

For example if a minister is given a parking ticket (something which isn't seen as a significant beach) that would be broadly acceptable, however if it was caught kissing a member of staff (like Matt Hancock), whilst not as much of an issue than it once may have been would still cause a reasonable level of backlash.

By not setting the tone, it is easy to understand why there's the perception that (especially given all that's been going on) it's being changed to let people off the hook
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,902
Location
Leeds
That puts me well up in the politician stakes, as you will have seen how politicians respond to questioning during TV interviews. There was a prime example on the BBC morning programme when Charlie Stayt was trying to get Rishi Sunak to give information live on that programme prior to it first being announced in the House of Commons.

However, at 77, I am too old to make new career in politics, but am happy to be a back-bencher on this website.
Not stopped any other Tory MPs…
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Since I must be one of the most regular Conservative supporters posting here, I guess I should answer that :) And to be honest, I would prefer someone else with more demonstrated integrity to be leading the party (although I'm not really sure who). That's not going to change my vote though if there was a general election tomorrow because in the end, if none of the options are perfect, then you have to vote for the least bad option, and right now one look at any of the other parties would make me want to run a mile... :(
I think this in effect demonstrates the incumbent advantage, where even if the alternative is better than the incumbent, if this is not to the extent of a stark contrast in the public eye (which I think is currently the case), then the incumbent usually can retain power. I think there was similar in 2005, where Blair's support was waning as Iraq realities started to impact, but the Tory opposition at the time still wasn't a good enough alternative to do anymore than reduce the size of Blair's majority.

I also note that a prominent Conservative MP not too distant from my part of the world has this evening expressed doubts about his re-election prospects

This is a fairly leafy and prosperous part of the world (probably not dissimilar from Prestbury and Wilmslow) and I wonder if the following comment raises any alarm bells?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/27/tories-win-next-election-boris-has-go/
Given the way London went in the local elections it's no surprise a Tory MP in Greater London is worried.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,267
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
But bearing in mind the worst effects of the economic crisis are likely be between now and the next election, that should make the Tories worried, not reassure them. In particular, the Red Wall will be increasingly vulnerable as the crisis is likely to hit harder there and people in the Red Wall will wake up and realise that Brexit wasn't the solution to all their problems that the Tories promised them in 2019.

The best chance for them to win, I think, is to ditch Johnson now, put someone like Hunt in, and call an election now. They might win, they might not win, but they'd be less likely IMO to win after we've had a year or two of the current problems.
Did you make this posting in hope or expectation? With the Conservatives being only in mid-term with two years still to go, why should they give up the advantage of being in power? I am old enough to remember how shrewd Harold Wilson was over matters such as this and would not willingly give up when there was that amount of time still to go. He did not have as big an overall majority as the present incumbent.

Given the way London went in the local elections it's no surprise a Tory MP in Greater London is worried.
Have you already forgotten the total of total gains in those local elections in London by Labour was equalled by the losses they suffered in London?
 
Last edited:

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,545
Location
Elginshire
In effect, he is creating a dictatorship before our eyes, with the connivance of his party including every Tory MP who doesn't submit a letter now. If he's removed as PM he'll be out of politics quicker than Cameron, no doubt to a place owned by one of his oligarch chums who owes him a big favour. Of course, he might refuse to stand down as P.M. because all the Tories can do is replace him as their leader. Will the Metropolitan Police storm Downing Street and drag him out? I can only dream!

Wouldn't it be nice if, having been caught speeding, one could say to the nice police officer, "Sorry, I realise that I was doing 85mph, but I've changed the rules so that it's no longer illegal".

This absolutely stinks, but it doesn't really surprise me. It's what we've come to expect from a corrupt, morally bankrupt government.

What's next - election fixing? Or maybe we should just scrap the elections altogether.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,545
Location
Elginshire
Voter ID…
Quite. We do have a separate thread for that topic, though :

 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Have you already forgotten the total of total gains in those local elections in London by Labour was equalled by the losses they suffered?

What does how people voted outside London impact how worried a London MP might be about winning their seat at the next election?

Maybe the rules just need rewriting to allow the current PM not to need to be a sitting MP!?!?
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,267
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
What does how people voted outside London impact how worried a London MP might be about winning their seat at the next election?

Maybe the rules just need rewriting to allow the current PM not to need to be a sitting MP!?!?
I meant to compare the gains in London to the losses in London that affected the Labour Party. I missed the last two words "in London" in my posting. I shall now edit it.

This should teach me that "past midnight" is "sleeping time".....not "posting time",,,:oops::oops:
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
I meant to compare the gains in London to the losses in London that affected the Labour Party. I missed the last two words "in London" in my posting. I shall now edit it.

This should teach me that "past midnight" is "sleeping time".....not "posting time",,,:oops::oops:

I understood what you meant, I suspect the person you were replying to was referring to the fact that Boris, as a London MP, maybe worried that they may get voted out if the swing towards Labour in London continues to be strong.

It'll no good to Boris if the Tories having a 50 seat majority if he's not an MP.

Anyway given the current swings away from the Tories, overall it doesn't matter overly much towards who that is (even if Labour don't get a lot more seats) as even a 39 seat loss would require support from another party to be sure of safety.

A strong swing towards the Lib Dems (which isn't impossible) as well as modest gains by other parties could be enough to lock the Tories out of power.

Yes it may require a coalition of more than 2 parties, however that would likely limit the "worst" of any one party. For example the Lib Dems probably wouldn't support some of the more hard left policies which the Labour Party might propose. It's why the fear of Corbyn was slightly unfounded at the last election as it was unlikely that Labour would have been governing alone and so some of the more feared policies probably wouldn't have been possible.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,267
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Anyway given the current swings away from the Tories, overall it doesn't matter overly much towards who that is (even if Labour don't get a lot more seats) as even a 39 seat loss would require support from another party to be sure of safety.

A strong swing towards the Lib Dems (which isn't impossible) as well as modest gains by other parties could be enough to lock the Tories out of power.

Yes it may require a coalition of more than 2 parties, however that would likely limit the "worst" of any one party. For example the Lib Dems probably wouldn't support some of the more hard left policies which the Labour Party might propose. It's why the fear of Corbyn was slightly unfounded at the last election as it was unlikely that Labour would have been governing alone and so some of the more feared policies probably wouldn't have been possible.
I do think this is a very likely outcome and one that many people would welcome. The ideology that once saw working-class votes equate to Labour Party solidarity in areas of heavy and manufacturing industries will change as more and more younger people joining the electorate will be more likely to be influenced by technology that is commonplace to them, as can be seen by the rise of social media. The fact that "heartland" voting support can change in a major way can be seen in Scotland, where the Labour Party that once regarded that region as a stronghold for all time is now SNP, not just in one election but ongoing.

I note your reference to Jeremy Corbyn, but in my mind, he was just a figurehead of a rather worrying Momentum movement which had agendas that many people of differing political hues would not accept.
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
Wouldn't it be nice if, having been caught speeding, one could say to the nice police officer, "Sorry, I realise that I was doing 85mph, but I've changed the rules so that it's no longer illegal".
But Boris has done a lot more than just this. He has afforded himself the right to :-
1. Deny in court (aka Parliament in this case) that he was doing 85mph
2. Having had it proved that he really was doing 85mph, then to admit that he was, but hadn't realised it was wrong to do so
3. Having had it pointed out that he made the law making speeding illegal, to answer by saying "There's a war in Ukraine"
4. Having then had it pointed out that he actually exceeded the legal speed limit several times, to commission a highly time consuming report investigating the matter, and meanwhile continue breaking the law
5. Every time the continued law breaking is questioned, to point out many details of imperfections in the conduct of every officer involved in questioning him
6. Surround himself with an army of baying supporters heckling everyone who expresses concern about his ongoing lawbreaking
7. Laugh off all further concerns in the full knowledge that the public don't have the appetite to continue to fight this wrongdoing

So even if the rules weren't changed, the enforcement of them is so incredibly biased against those who are less powerful, that those with power know they can abuse them at will. Sadly not unlike many other aspects of law enforcement. It's no wonder our laws are disrespected by so many.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,267
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
I think this point need reiterating, as it appears that a number of thread contributors appear to believe that it was Johnson himself who drew up the change...:rolleyes:
That's as maybe. But those who weren't personally responsible for making laws about speed limits, don't suddenly have the right to break them. Or even to deny knowledge about them.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
Since I must be one of the most regular Conservative supporters posting here, I guess I should answer that :) And to be honest, I would prefer someone else with more demonstrated integrity to be leading the party (although I'm not really sure who). That's not going to change my vote though if there was a general election tomorrow because in the end, if none of the options are perfect, then you have to vote for the least bad option, and right now one look at any of the other parties would make me want to run a mile... :(

OK thanks. To be honest what I was getting at was not so much "should Conservative supporters switch their allegiance?" (which I wasn't expecting TBH), but rather "should Conservative supporters put pressure on their MP to force Johnson out"?
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
I think this point need reiterating, as it appears that a number of thread contributors appear to believe that it was Johnson himself who drew up the change...:rolleyes:
That is true. However, it's worth reading paragraphs 3.32 - 3.38 of the aforementioned report for some context here. The Committee recommended that the Independent Adviser should be able to initiate their own investigations, and this is Recommendation 8: "The Independent Adviser should be able to initiate investigations into breaches of the Ministerial Code". However the argument against this was that if this happened and a minister was found to be in breach of the code, and the only sanction was resignation, then that interferes with the PM's constitutional role in determining who serves in the government. So the system of graduated sanctions was recommended in order to counter this constitutional obstacle.

However what the revised version said is this (my bold)

10. As an adviser to the Prime Minister on matters relating to the Ministerial Code, the Independent Adviser is able to provide independent advice on the initiation of an investigation and the revised Terms of Reference set out an enhanced process to allow for the Independent Adviser to independently initiate an investigation, having consulted the Prime Minister and obtained his consent. However, reflecting the Prime Minister’s accountability for the conduct of the Executive, it is important that a role is retained for the Prime Minister in decisions about investigations.


So perhaps the argument can be made that a somewhat selective approach has been taken to the recommendations...

It also falls short of recommendations in this report from the Institute for Government from last year. It contains some pretty strong stuff even though it predates 'partygate'

The ministerial code is not working, is being undermined by the prime minister and requires urgent reform.

This report argues that Boris Johnson should fundamentally overhaul the rules which govern the standards of behaviour to which ministers are expected to adhere.

Recent revelations about a lack of transparency in government, particularly around meetings with Greensill Capital, and the questions of accountability prompted by the Hancock affair make clear that more than just piecemeal updates are need. The prime minister must take this opportunity to demonstrate that he believes in upholding the highest ministerial standards in government.

While Johnson says that he values high standards in government, his actions reveal otherwise. By rejecting his independent adviser’s conclusions when the home secretary was accused of bullying civil servants, and by saying he ‘considered the matter closed’ when the news of Hancock’s breach of Covid rules broke, Boris Johnson has undermined the code. While the prime minister will always be ultimately responsible for standards in government – or the lack of them – a strengthened code, with proper independent investigations, will help rebuild confidence that standards still matter.

The report recommends that:

The existence of the ministerial code, like the codes governing the behaviour of civil servants and special advisers, be given a statutory underpinning.
The prime minister’s independent adviser be allowed to start investigations and publish findings without prior prime ministerial agreement.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/updating-ministerial-code
 
Last edited:

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,289
Location
Up the creek
One person who seems to got off lightly is Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, who is as responsible as Johnson for maintaining standards of behaviour at Number 10. Yet he appears to be barely mentioned in the report and not to be criticised in it. One wonders if it is the same situation as has been suggested with other high-ups at Number 10: he had expensive legal advice which allowed him to dodge the consequences of his (in)action, while those at the bottom didn’t. Even worse is the (unproven) suggestion that those at the bottom were advised to admit to what they had done as they would only get a token rap over the knuckles, but were then sold down the river in order to save the skins of those at the top.
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,771
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
Johnson is in a(nother) difficult spot over any revisions to the ministerial code. If he were perceived to be advocating a change that would enable a minister to remain in office after misleading Parliament, we would ask why he was doing that, and many people would conclude that the reason was that he himself had misled Parliament and was seeking to avoid having to resign. So advocating such a change in the code would appear to be equivalent to admitting that he had been misleading. Even though the proposal originated elsewhere, enthusiastic support for it by Johnson could still be construed as an admission that he had not been honest.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,267
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Johnson is in a(nother) difficult spot over any revisions to the ministerial code. If he were perceived to be advocating a change that would enable a minister to remain in office after misleading Parliament, we would ask why he was doing that, and many people would conclude that the reason was that he himself had misled Parliament and was seeking to avoid having to resign. So advocating such a change in the code would appear to be equivalent to admitting that he had been misleading. Even though the proposal originated elsewhere, enthusiastic support for it by Johnson could still be construed as an admission that he had not been honest.
Please look at posting # 2,835 on the thread that was made earlier today. in case others get the wrong idea about who it was who made the recommendations. I know that you are aware of the facts of the matter.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
Please look at posting # 2,835 on the thread that was made earlier today. in case others get the wrong idea about who it was who made the recommendations. I know that you are aware of the facts of the matter.

Note that @3141 said "even though the proposal originated elsewhere, enthusiastic support for it by Johnson could still be construed as an admission that he had not been honest". The statement is not claiming Johnson invented the rule changes, but is suggesting that he might be exploiting them at this time.
 
Last edited:

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
Please look at posting # 2,835 on the thread that was made earlier today. in case others get the wrong idea about who it was who made the recommendations. I know that you are aware of the facts of the matter.
The report contained 34 recommendations.

Recommendation 6 states "the Ministerial Code should detail a range of sanctions the Prime Minister may issue, including, but not limited to, apologies, fines, and asking for a minister’s resignation". The rationale behind this is given in paragraph 3.28: "To create a situation where any independent regulator of the Ministerial Code would effectively have the power to fire a minister would be unconstitutional."

Recommendation 8 states "the Independent Adviser should be able to initiate investigations into breaches of the Ministerial Code". The rationale behind this is given in paragraphs 3.36-3.38. "The Committee still believes that the Independent Adviser should have the ability to initiate their own investigations. Meaningful independence is the benchmark for any effective form of standards regulation and current arrangements still fall below this bar. ... It is understandable for Prime Ministers to want to retain control of powers relating to the independence of investigations when the conclusion of such an investigation could force a ministerial resignation. ... The use of graduated sanctions ensures that there is no constitutional impropriety in granting the Independent Adviser the ability to initiate investigations."

So at the risk of having to spell it out, the argument is that by implementing recommendation 6 but not recommendation 8, even though the former was proposed in order to deal with objections to the latter, there has been some cherry-picking going on as to what does and doesn't get implemented.

Or am I misinterpreting something?
 

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,218
And yet another story to try and distract:

Boris Johnson to reportedly bring back imperial measurements to mark platinum jubilee​

Boris Johnson will reportedly announce the return of imperial measurements to mark the Queen’s platinum jubilee, in an apparent attempt to garner support among Brexiter voters in battleground seats that the Conservatives are in danger of losing.

Britain currently uses a mix of imperial and metric measurements, with speed limits in miles per hour and milk and beer bought in pints.

The prime minister, under increasing pressure after further damaging revelations in the Partygate scandal, is expected to announce next week that British shops will be allowed to sell products in pounds and ounces to coincide with celebrations for the monarch’s 70 years on the throne.
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,800
One person who seems to got off lightly is Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, who is as responsible as Johnson for maintaining standards of behaviour at Number 10

Sue Grey pointed to failings on both the political and “office” side of number 10. Johnson needs the pair of them to be treated similarly
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
New road signs will no longer show distances in kilometres. Just the way that existing signs don't. :s:rolleyes:
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,595
I would quite like petrol and diesel to be sold in gallons at the pump. This would mean that MPG and gallons put in tank were easier to re oncile / check. The change to selling per litre was a combination of govt at the time feeing embarrassed by increase in price of petrol (which was of course masked by selling by litres) and the difficulty the petrol pump manufacturers had with mechanical pump mechanisms. Fuel pumps these days are, as far as I know, electronic, so it should be pretty simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top