Boris's Brain is missing

[thirdcrank]

IMO the eventual judgment will be worth reading from start to finish. In any contested court judgment there will have been one lot of learned friends who got it right, and another who didn't. That's subject to the point that the ... er ... points, may go to appeal or several.

[Jdsk]

"In the matter of the Metropolitan Police refusal to investigate No. 10 gatherings"

Application now made.

The legal opinion:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wpelem ... pJUyY/view

Too much for me to read but I was surprised it doesn't seem to make reference to Blackburn.

Footnote 19.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

I'm surprised that the "find on page" facility didn't find it. I'll still hold my breath for the judgment.

[roubaixtuesday]

He's getting mauled in prime ministers question time on BBC2 right now -- David Davis has just told him " You've sat there too long for all the good you've done - in the name of God GO!"

A Russian doll of layered ironies in the situation we're in now.

Johnson's character is, and always has been well known. A self- entitled narcissist entirely alien to the concept of truth. A man who according to a school report ..."sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility... ...I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation which binds everyone else", was twice sacked for dishonesty, has a personal life littered with betrayal and scattered with abandoned children, and ran a campaign for Brexit with an open and blatant lie as its strapline on a bus.

So it's hardly a surprise that, toddler-like, he blames everyone else for being caught breaking the rules. But why is he there in the first place? Well, it's because the likes of Davis put him there. They never believed him, they never trusted him, they never thought he'd change, they simply saw him as a vehicle for their own personal power and extreme ideology. And they were more than happy for him to keep on lying and cheating - the corruption, the bodies piling up - as long as they kept their power, influence, and, increasingly, corrupt monies. They cared not one jot for the degradation of public life, the collapse in respect for our country abroad that came with it.

But now the public turn against him and he's no longer any use. Suddenly, miraculously, the scales fall from Davis's eyes. And, most deliciously of all, the man who whipped up fear of foreigners and outsiders as a means to gain power, is condemned by one who held on to his shirt tails for his own ends. Naturally, The War must be invoked at this point, for the UK is forever condemned to look backwards to this most glorious chapter. And he quote used? Chamberlain condemned for his insufficient rigour in standing up to another politician who used loathing of outsiders to gain power.

You couldn't make it up.

The revolution devouring its own.

Rory Stewart, quoted from the FT, seems to hold very similar opinions, though much more eloquently stated:

Boris Johnson is a terrible prime minister and a worse human being.

But he is not a monster newly sprung from a rent between this world and the next. Twenty years have passed since the Conservative party first selected him as a candidate. Michael Howard and David Cameron made him a shadow minister, and Theresa May gave him the Foreign Office. Thirty years of celebrity made him famous for his mendacity, indifference to detail, poor administration, and inveterate betrayal of every personal commitment.

Yet, knowing this, the majority of Conservative MPs, and party members, still voted for him to be prime minister. He is not, therefore, an aberration, but a product of a system that will continue to produce terrible politicians long after he is gone.

MPs selected him because they would not risk the possibility of a smaller majority under a better leader. Winning mattered more than governing well. And the public often seems to share this indifference


Oof.

[reohn2]

Oof indeed, the Tory party exposed for what it is!

[francovendee]

I'm led to believe that the electorate choose their MP's by what party they represent, where they stand on local issues or the Leader of the party.
If it's because of their stand on local issues, i.e representing the local constituents then the whipping system can, and does, remove you're local MP's views being represented.
If your constituency has a major problem with say polluted rivers but the government wants to lower the standards then the whips make you go against your constituents best interests.
I realise that it would be much harder to pass new legislation but how can the system of whipping square with an MP representing local interests?
I think the whipping system stinks just as lobbying does.

[Cowsham]

This was good listening last night -- "Any Answers " here's a link to the BBC R4 program on BBC sounds app

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0013jc9

-- regarding whipping. Mp sir Edward Liegh saying why it was necessary but he got some telling questions and

[Psamathe]

I'm led to believe that the electorate choose their MP's by what party they represent, where they stand on local issues or the Leader of the party.
If it's because of their stand on local issues, i.e representing the local constituents then the whipping system can, and does, remove you're local MP's views being represented.
If your constituency has a major problem with say polluted rivers but the government wants to lower the standards then the whips make you go against your constituents best interests.
I realise that it would be much harder to pass new legislation but how can the system of whipping square with an MP representing local interests?
I think the whipping system stinks just as lobbying does.

I wonder if it's broader than that e.g. when MPs are faced with having some sort of moral standards vs doing what leader wants e.g. Owen Patterson votes. How many Conservative MPs recognised that Patterson has been found to have acted wrongly yet those MPs voted as the whips told them to rather than upholding basic moral standards. No local representation involved, just a question about doing what the party leader wants even when it is clearly a bad leadership decision. All made even worse when Johnson later apologised, having cajoled so many of his MPs to follow his bad decision.

Ian

[Jdsk]

I'm led to believe that the electorate choose their MP's by what party they represent, where they stand on local issues or the Leader of the party.
If it's because of their stand on local issues, i.e representing the local constituents then the whipping system can, and does, remove you're local MP's views being represented.
If your constituency has a major problem with say polluted rivers but the government wants to lower the standards then the whips make you go against your constituents best interests.
I realise that it would be much harder to pass new legislation but how can the system of whipping square with an MP representing local interests?
I think the whipping system stinks just as lobbying does.

I wonder if it's broader than that e.g. when MPs are faced with having some sort of moral standards vs doing what leader wants e.g. Owen Patterson votes. How many Conservative MPs recognised that Patterson has been found to have acted wrongly yet those MPs voted as the whips told them to rather than upholding basic moral standards. No local representation involved, just a question about doing what the party leader wants even when it is clearly a bad leadership decision. All made even worse when Johnson later apologised, having cajoled so many of his MPs to follow his bad decision.

And part of the defective separation of powers in our system.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

The two major parties have lost any idea of getting bills passed by debate to convince the house to vote a certain way.
Perhaps a parliament Made up of a majority of independent MPs would stop all this whipping to get bills through and we'd get better government?

I suspect that if there was a way of electing truly independent MPs - perhaps by having some sort of press gang snatching people off the street - then by teatime on the first day, they would have started aligning themselves into groups with similar interests.

[francovendee]

If it were just groups with similar interests aligning themselves then that may be acceptable. Forcing those groups to always vote for the majority view is something altogether different. Persuasion is Ok but by threats and coercion certainly not.
Nothing being revealed about the state of politics today would indicate the UK as being the mother of all parliaments.

[Jdsk]

PS: I suspect that her report is rapidly becoming irrelevant.

I agree. I think that even Canute Johnson is failing to stop the tide of public opprobrium from rising this time.

"Pressure is building on the Metropolitan police from Tory MPs who want the force to investigate Downing Street’s lockdown parties regardless of the findings of the Sue Gray report this week.":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -partygate

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

Would anybody be surprised is Cummings or somebody else was holding back further revelations until Gray's report is released - to counter any of the cautions phrasing and/or lack of judgement. Johnson read's the words, thinks he can smirk his way through that only for Cummings' blog to have a new post 10 mins later.

If anybody has further parties or incriminatory evidence now is not the time to release it for best effect/worst damage.

Ian

[Jdsk]

Would anybody be surprised is Cummings or somebody else was holding back further revelations until Gray's report is released - to counter any of the cautions phrasing and/or lack of judgement. Johnson read's the words, thinks he can smirk his way through that only for Cummings' blog to have a new post 10 mins later.

If anybody has further parties or incriminatory evidence now is not the time to release it for best effect/worst damage.

I think that you're right.

And there's nothing in the terms of reference that requires anyone to publish the full report. But if they don't then I expect the battles to continue even without further revelations until they do.

And of course the bullying and unlawful incitements aren't in her remit at all.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Would anybody be surprised is Cummings or somebody else was holding back further revelations until Gray's report is released - to counter any of the cautions phrasing and/or lack of judgement. Johnson read's the words, thinks he can smirk his way through that only for Cummings' blog to have a new post 10 mins later.

If anybody has further parties or incriminatory evidence now is not the time to release it for best effect/worst damage.

I think that you're right.

And there's nothing in the terms of reference that requires anyone to publish the full report. But if they don't then I expect the battles to continue even without further revelations until they do.

And of course the bullying and unlawful incitements aren't in Gray's remit at all.

Jonathan