news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Cherry Tree said:

Yes the terms of the enquiry don’t include looking for breaches of the ministerial code, that would have to be added by the prime minister. Anyway how is she meant to conclude that it was all the fault of civil servants if she is allowed to investigate the actions of ministers.

If she has any credibility she should point out that a sitting Prime Minister is breaking the ministerial code regardless of her remit. She won’t because the whole inquiry is a pointless, can kicking, waste of time that only exists to let Boris Johnson off the hook. 

[Leyrulion]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

If she has any credibility she should point out that a sitting Prime Minister is breaking the ministerial code regardless of her remit. She won’t because the whole inquiry is a pointless, can kicking, waste of time that only exists to let Boris Johnson off the hook. 

To maintain her credibility she'll do her job in the parameters she was given. That's how she's been a civil servant for 20+ years and maintained high office through different governments and prime minister's. 

Civil servants are impartial, which is why its an impossible task for her to do. She will come down heavily on the cabinet secretary I imagine, but effectively they've asked a junior member of staff to investigate the CEO. No company would ever allow that, should have been an external person/judge or a cross party panel of MPs. 

The inquiry will I imagine find that BJ is "technically correct", but that's not going to have nearly the positive effect his staffers think it will. Tbh it might even make it worse. 

[Neil]

No wonder the country is fucked the govt is pissed all the time. 

[ian the worm]

6 hours ago, Cherry Tree said:

According to the BBC the two parties joined together and the party continued to late in the night in the Downing Street gardens. No wonder Boris always looks so disheveled, he can’t get a decent nights sleep because of all the staff working late outside his house.

Oh good, now we have a coalition. 

[not worthy]

Labour should be having more fun with this.

I watched a Labour MP yesterday respond to a question of "Will Johnson be PM at the next GE?"

She responded with the predictable stuff that he should resign etc

What I would have enjoyed seeing Labour say would be along the lines of -

I doubt he'll be PM at then next election because of all the lies and incompetence etc

however, I hope he is PM by the as he will return a labour government

but, I fear too much for the damage he could do in the mean time

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Leyrulion said:

To maintain her credibility she'll do her job in the parameters she was given. That's how she's been a civil servant for 20+ years and maintained high office through different governments and prime minister's. 

Civil servants are impartial, which is why its an impossible task for her to do. She will come down heavily on the cabinet secretary I imagine, but effectively they've asked a junior member of staff to investigate the CEO. No company would ever allow that, should have been an external person/judge or a cross party panel of MPs. 

The inquiry will I imagine find that BJ is "technically correct", but that's not going to have nearly the positive effect his staffers think it will. Tbh it might even make it worse. 

So I was right - she’s a stooge for Johnson and the inquiry is a massive waste of time designed to get Johnson off the hook.

If this report is correct she should resign and cite Johnson breaking the ministerial code. 

[steviewevie]

6 hours ago, Leyrulion said:

To maintain her credibility she'll do her job in the parameters she was given. That's how she's been a civil servant for 20+ years and maintained high office through different governments and prime minister's. 

Civil servants are impartial, which is why its an impossible task for her to do. She will come down heavily on the cabinet secretary I imagine, but effectively they've asked a junior member of staff to investigate the CEO. No company would ever allow that, should have been an external person/judge or a cross party panel of MPs. 

The inquiry will I imagine find that BJ is "technically correct", but that's not going to have nearly the positive effect his staffers think it will. Tbh it might even make it worse. 

I wonder if she'll say whether any of this was illegal and how culpable pm was is outside her remit and suggest another investigation by someone or other...

[steviewevie]

https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1481894414419116037

[Guest]

Just now, steviewevie said:

https://twitter.com/BBCJonSopel/status/1481894414419116037

 

[steviewevie]

Doesn't sound like Johnson was at many of these parties...but he must have known they were happening.

[Ryan1984]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Doesn't sound like Johnson was at many of these parties...but he must have known they were happening.

And surely the Met police did?

[CaledonianGonzo]

And The Sun

[Guest]

Farewell speeches were now exempt it seems. Silly is for not understanding what these rules really were. 

[Punksnotdead]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Farewell speeches were now exempt it seems. Silly is for not understanding what these rules really were. 

A farewell speech that lasted hours, with music, dancing and alcohol!

[steviewevie]

17 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

And surely the Met police did?

yeah, this is looking more and more dodgy...I mean they brought a suitcase of booze into downing st, all bags are checked right? So, they knew about all this stuff...and did nothing, and still don't want to get involved.

[Gingerfish79]

20 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

And surely the Met police did?

Welcome to your all-new Fascist state. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Punksnotdead said:

A farewell speech that lasted hours, with music, dancing and alcohol!

It’s us that are the problem it seems, we are too stupid to understand what we could’ve done.

They love to gaslight us. 

[Ayrshire Chris]

Looks like it’s politicians, civil servants,  the met police and even MI5 are all culpable of ignoring what went on in Downing Street. They all would be aware of gatherings, alcohol consumption and how many are involved.  How they thought it could be kept secret just shows their arrogance and stupidity. 

[Gingerfish79]

I fear this is a quickly closing window of opportunity to get shut of Johnson and his gang. If he survives this we might never get rid of them. 

[Gingerfish79]

 

[Justiceforcedave]

It’s like watching a heist movie. Where the main characters get backed into a seemingly impossible situation only to escape it by way of an elaborate plan/montage.

In all seriousness though, haven’t the public already made up their mind about Boris? If the inquiry backs up his statement at PMQs (which it will) perhaps a small minority will be satisfied, but I suspect most will just call bullshit on the whole thing, damaging the government’s reputation further.

Every Tory MP backing him is gambling with the reputation of their party. If inquiry find there was wrongdoing from the PM, they have to oust him immediately. But if it doesn’t/is ambiguous and they try to brush it off then it won’t just be Johnson who is branded a liar.

 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

Looks like it’s politicians, civil servants,  the met police and even MI5 are all culpable of ignoring what went on in Downing Street. They all would be aware of gatherings, alcohol consumption and how many are involved.  How they thought it could be kept secret just shows their arrogance and stupidity. 

Everyone but Johnson, for some reason he must be protected at all costs.

Fortunately the public seemed to have seen through this. I’ve seen clips of people on the news saying they ‘hate’ Johnson now and I’ve never seen language used for a PM like that before. 

[Justiceforcedave]

…and even if he does somehow survive do the conservatives really want to gamble on keeping him around? As much as Boris perhaps thinks otherwise, the controversies are frequent and cumulative (from as far back as being fired and the affairs to as recently as the Geidt report).
 

How long will it really be before something new emerges?

[zahidf]

 

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2022 by zahidf

[Justiceforcedave]

12 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Its hard to see Boris fighting the next election but I think that has been the case for quite a long time now.

Its all a question about how fast the process to swap him out will be I feel.

Get rid of him now and wash off some of the stink or keep him for a bit longer and concede that he'll potentially damage the image of the party as a whole? I know what seems logical to me. I guess we'll see.