Theresa May Resigns & Conservative Leader Election Discussion

[Bantamzen]

Whoops, there might be one less candidate in the running now...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430

Brexit: Boris Johnson ordered to appear in court over £350m claim

Boris Johnson has been ordered to appear in court over claims he lied by saying the UK gave the EU £350m a week.

The Tory leadership candidate has been accused of misconduct in public office after making the claim during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.

It is a private prosecution launched by campaigner Marcus Ball, who crowdfunded £200,000 for the case.

Mr Johnson's representatives have called the case a "stunt" that is being "brought for political purposes".

The preliminary hearing will take place at Westminster Magistrates' Court and the case will then be sent to the Crown Court for trial.

The BBC's assistant political editor, Norman Smith, said the allegations could not come at a worse time for Mr Johnson, and his critics are likely to use the claims against him in the upcoming contest to become next Tory leader and prime minister.

The £350m figure was used by the pro-Brexit Vote Leave group throughout the referendum campaign on the side of a red bus, calling for the UK to "fund our NHS instead".

Mr Johnson faces three allegations of misconduct in public office, between 21 February 2016 and 23 June 2016 - after he had announced he was backing Leave, up until the referendum vote - and 18 April 2017 to 3 May 2017 - during the general election that year.

Mr Ball's lawyers lodged an application in February to summons Mr Johnson, claiming the MP had deliberately misled the public during the first campaign, and repeated the statement during the second.

Lewis Power QC, who represents Mr Ball, said Mr Johnson's conduct had been "both irresponsible and dishonest".

But Mr Johnson's representatives said the case was about "the desire on the part of individuals, such as Mr Ball, to undermine the referendum result".

In her written ruling, District Judge Margot Coleman said: "I accept that the public offices held by Mr Johnson provide status, but with that status comes influence and authority.

"I am satisfied there is sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of an issue to be determined at trial of this aspect."

Surely a potential candidate facing a serious charge can't be allowed to go forward? Surely even the Tories wouldn't let this happen? Oh wait....

 

[Typhoon]

That's true at face value, but most are in there to stand down later in order to support another candidate and get a seat in cabinet as reward.

That's fine provided they support the winning candidate. And we've now got half a cabinet as candidates (some of whom appear to have little discernible talent).

 

[thejuggler]

Anyone else wonder why BBC management think it is good practice to spend licence money promoting the new head of a private members club?

 

[DerekC]

Whoops, there might be one less candidate in the running now...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430



Surely a potential candidate facing a serious charge can't be allowed to go forward? Surely even the Tories wouldn't let this happen? Oh wait....

Knowing how long legal cases take, a plausible scenario is that BJ gets elected as leader/Prime Minister but then has to resign on being found guilty! Then we have to put up with Tory Leadership Wars II. Oh what a tangled web...

 

[Bantamzen]

Knowing how long legal cases take, a plausible scenario is that BJ gets elected as leader/Prime Minister but then has to resign on being found guilty! Then we have to put up with Tory Leadership Wars II. Oh what a tangled web...

This would not suprise me in the least. Could this be a record, 4 PMs in 3-4 years? No doubt the next few weeks will be full of claim and counter-claim of a mainstream media witch-hunt, especially if BoJo meets Trump when the great orange one hits our shores....

 

[DarloRich]

Anyone else wonder why BBC management think it is good practice to spend licence money promoting the new head of a private members club?

because the head of that private members club is to be PM. Not sure about you but the future direction of our country seems canny important to me....................

 

[thejuggler]

because the head of that private members club is to be PM. Not sure about you but the future direction of our country seems canny important to me....................

Do we therefore all get a vote on who the PM is after the talking heads shows?

We aren't the US - the selection of PM is down to members of the club, not the general public.

 

[DarloRich]

Do we therefore all get a vote on who the PM is after the talking heads shows?

We aren't the US - the selection of PM is down to members of the club, not the general public.

You get a vote at the general election, however you already know this.

 

[433N]

Knowing how long legal cases take, a plausible scenario is that BJ gets elected as leader/Prime Minister but then has to resign on being found guilty! Then we have to put up with Tory Leadership Wars II. Oh what a tangled web...

Or he could do the honourable thing and withdraw now so that very scenario is avoided ... whoops, I was forgetting we are talking about Boris Johnson.

 

[Ianno87]

Do we therefore all get a vote on who the PM is after the talking heads shows?

We aren't the US - the selection of PM is down to members of the club, not the general public.

You get a vote at the general election, however you already know this.

We can at least watch the car crash happen, so it's not *entirely* behind closed doors...

 

[thejuggler]

You get a vote at the general election, however you already know this.

I have never seen the PMs name on any ballot paper I have completed. Only those who live in the constituency of that individual has that luxury and even then they are voting for an MP, not PM.

The GE isn't for another 3 years, all could have changed by then.

I can only think the BBC have no other political stuff to cover until recess.

 

[furnessvale]

Or he could do the honourable thing and withdraw now so that very scenario is avoided ... whoops, I was forgetting we are talking about Boris Johnson.

Which is precisely what the complainant in this private prosecution, a remain campaigner, wishes to achieve.

 

[Bantamzen]

I have never seen the PMs name on any ballot paper I have completed. Only those who live in the constituency of that individual has that luxury and even then they are voting for an MP, not PM.

The GE isn't for another 3 years, all could have changed by then.

I can only think the BBC have no other political stuff to cover until recess.

Eh? A potential Prime Minister is being taken to court, over allegations of lying on one of the most important issues of this time, and you think its a slow political news day? I dread to think what it would take for you to deem some political event newsworthy, perhaps if Boris ran into Westminster stark naked, or turned up at the Champions League final to score the winning goal, or stealing Trump's "football" and retreating to his evil master's volcano base to demand a trillion dollars from the UN....

 

[Typhoon]

..., perhaps if Boris ran into Westminster stark naked ...

Thanks for that, I'm going to have trouble getting to sleep now!

 

[433N]

... perhaps if Boris ran into Westminster stark naked ...

Thanks for that, I'm going to have trouble getting to sleep now!

Perhaps if you now imagine him making a speech, that might help.

 

[Bevan Price]

Personally, I am uneasy that almost anyone (with enough money) can seek to pursue "private prosecutions". Prosecution of criminal behaviour should be by the police.

The rather vague "Misconduct in Public Office" seems open to various interpretations.

If followed to the ultimate limit, prisons could be full of politicians who spoke in election campaigns, or even politicians who had "affairs".

 

[Typhoon]

Perhaps if you now imagine him making a speech, that might help.

I now worry that I'm going to wake up and find that I've throttled someone in my sleep!

He never sends me to sleep because he talks such drivel. I'm now listening to Gove on the radio, I might be OK.

 

[thejuggler]

Eh? A potential Prime Minister is being taken to court, over allegations of lying on one of the most important issues of this time, and you think its a slow political news day? I dread to think what it would take for you to deem some political event newsworthy, perhaps if Boris ran into Westminster stark naked, or turned up at the Champions League final to score the winning goal, or stealing Trump's "football" and retreating to his evil master's volcano base to demand a trillion dollars from the UN....

The one who wins this battle is the one who has access and ability to pay the best barristers. Legal arguments could last months.

 

[edwin_m]

Personally, I am uneasy that almost anyone (with enough money) can seek to pursue "private prosecutions". Prosecution of criminal behaviour should be by the police.

The rather vague "Misconduct in Public Office" seems open to various interpretations.

If followed to the ultimate limit, prisons could be full of politicians who spoke in election campaigns, or even politicians who had "affairs".

I agree there is some risk of a slippery slope here, and some would no doubt argue that this solves the House of Commons refurbishment problem by moving the lot of them to Wormwood Scrubs.

I don't think it would be viable or appropriate to make breaking an election promise punishable by law - the punishment would be at the next election. However I do think that some penalty is in order for a politician who says something clearly contradicted by facts that are known at the time, especially if they carry on doing so after a warning by some neutral body as the Leavers got from the UK Statistics Authority (see below).

I do have a concern though that the current prosecution is on the grounds of "misconduct in public office", since that is only applicable to people who are in office at the time, and would leave those who aren't in such a position during the campaign free to say what they liked. To take a random example I'm not sure if it would be applicable to an absentee MEP.

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov...stics-on-contributions-to-the-european-union/

The UK Statistics Authority is disappointed to note that there continue to be suggestions that the UK contributes £350 million to the EU each week, and that this full amount could be spent elsewhere.

As we have made clear, the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate. We have also pointed out that there are payments received by the UK public and private sectors that are relevant here. The continued use of a gross figure in contexts that imply it is a net figure is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics.

 

[Busaholic]

I agree there is some risk of a slippery slope here, and some would no doubt argue that this solves the House of Commons refurbishment problem by moving the lot of them to Wormwood Scrubs.

I don't think it would be viable or appropriate to make breaking an election promise punishable by law - the punishment would be at the next election. However I do think that some penalty is in order for a politician who says something clearly contradicted by facts that are known at the time, especially if they carry on doing so after a warning by some neutral body as the Leavers got from the UK Statistics Authority (see below).

I do have a concern though that the current prosecution is on the grounds of "misconduct in public office", since that is only applicable to people who are in office at the time, and would leave those who aren't in such a position during the campaign free to say what they liked. To take a random example I'm not sure if it would be applicable to an absentee MEP.

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov...stics-on-contributions-to-the-european-union/

I agree with a lot of what you say, but would just point out that we are not talking an election here, let alone a promise. This was a referendum, instituted by a government for its own self-serving purposes, regardless of the decision coming back and biting such a huge hole in their backsides, taking the rest of the nation's backsides with it. The UK Statistics Office's gripe (which later became much more than that) was not with what Johnson and co. said they would do with the 'spare' money (which you could interpret as a promise) but the patent untruths about how much cash was sent to the EU each week that would now be available. If you want to make an analogy, Johnson was given a caution and chose to ignore it. In those circumstances, if it was a police matter, Johnson could have been prosecuted: personally, I think it a shame that the UK Statistics Office were unable to further a prosecution themselves, but I have no doubt that their measured words will form the basis of the private prosecution, which I read has proved possible because of crowdfunding. So unlike Max Mosley's shenanigans, only possible through his extreme wealth!

 

[edwin_m]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but would just point out that we are not talking an election here, let alone a promise. This was a referendum, instituted by a government for its own self-serving purposes, regardless of the decision coming back and biting such a huge hole in their backsides, taking the rest of the nation's backsides with it. The UK Statistics Office's gripe (which later became much more than that) was not with what Johnson and co. said they would do with the 'spare' money (which you could interpret as a promise) but the patent untruths about how much cash was sent to the EU each week that would now be available. If you want to make an analogy, Johnson was given a caution and chose to ignore it. In those circumstances, if it was a police matter, Johnson could have been prosecuted: personally, I think it a shame that the UK Statistics Office were unable to further a prosecution themselves, but I have no doubt that their measured words will form the basis of the private prosecution, which I read has proved possible because of crowdfunding. So unlike Max Mosley's shenanigans, only possible through his extreme wealth!

Yes I agree with you - not really possible and probably not desirable to make election promises legally enforceable, however attractive it might look at first glance.

 

[krus_aragon]

This would not suprise me in the least. Could this be a record, 4 PMs in 3-4 years?

There's competition from the 1920s:

• David Lloyd George left office in October 1922
• Bonar Law took office until May 1923
• Stanley Baldwin then took over, lasting until January 1924
• Ramsay MacDonald had a bite of the apple until November 1924
• Then Stanley Baldwin got back in, and stayed put for four years

 

[robk23oxf]

I have never seen the PMs name on any ballot paper I have completed. Only those who live in the constituency of that individual has that luxury and even then they are voting for an MP, not PM.

My local MP was a chap called David Cameron so we didn't even get an MP as such. There's the problem of being in the Prime Ministerial constituency, they're never around to deal with local issues.

 

[Typhoon]

There's competition from the 1920s:

• David Lloyd George left office in October 1922
• Bonar Law took office until May 1923
• Stanley Baldwin then took over, lasting until January 1924
• Ramsay MacDonald had a bite of the apple until November 1924
• Then Stanley Baldwin got back in, and stayed put for four years

There are lessons to learn from this period. The Lloyd George and Ramsay MacDonald governments were coalitions. The conservatives walked out of the Lloyd George coalition following a meeting of their backbenchers, Bonar Law was asked to form a government but was soon diagnosed with cancer, so was replaced by Baldwin for the rest of the parliament. Memo to politicians - coalitions lead to unstable government.

Incidentally the calendar years 1782-3 will take some beating - five Prime Ministers (North, Rockingham, Shelbourne, Portland, Pitt). Things were different then, very little party loyalty. Er, maybe not so different.

 

[Typhoon]

They'd make the worst football team in the world though, wouldn't they ?

There are now enough to name a substitute (https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/30/form...-leadership-race-replace-theresa-may-9752960/).

I think he's the first one I've really never heard of.

 

[Groningen]

Well Donald Trump endorses Boris Johnson and (not surprising) Nigel Farage (and treats them as a friend).. Boris has surely also only kind words about Donald.

 

[Typhoon]

Well Donald Trump endorses Boris Johnson and (not surprising) Nigel Farage (and treats them as a friend).. Boris has surely also only kind words about Donald.

Not always:

Responding to Donald Trump's suggestion that parts of London and Paris were now so radicalized that police officers feared for their lives, Johnson said: "Donald Trump's ill-informed comments are complete and utter nonsense." He added: The only reason I wouldn't go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump."

(from https://www.politico.eu/article/11-boris-johnson-diplomatic-gaffes/ )

You don't think its Trump's revenge - a ringing endorsement from him would scupper Mr Johnson's leadership bid completely?

 

[Howardh]

Jo Swinson has announced she's running for PM; that will be for the LibDems who, according to a poll in the Times, are now ahead of Brexit (2 points) and the smaller parties (Tory, Labour)!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk

A quick post about the YouGov poll in Friday’s Times. Topline Westminster voting intention figures are CON 19%, LAB 19%, LDEM 24%, BREXIT 22%.

These are obviously startling figures, unprecedented even. There are historical examples of third parties taking the lead (Cleggmania, for example, or the early successes of the SDP-Liberal Alliance), but I don’t think there are any when the Conservatives and Labour were both pushed out of the top two.

However, even leaving aside the traditional warning that this is “just one poll”, this is one poll conducted in the immediate aftermath of the European elections. Part of what we are seeing is a boost for the Liberal Democrats and Brexit party from doing well in the Euros, getting lots of media coverage and looking like winners. Under normal circumstances we would expect that boost to fade in time (though a success for either of them at the Peterborough by-election could potentially keep it going).

Although it doesn't say, I understand the Greens are on 6% so in a General Election there would be a grand Lab/LD/SNP/G coalition wiping the Tories and Brexit out of the picture. However it's just one poll, and if we want a poll of the whole of the UK we know what to do....

EDIT Greens on 8%.

 

[DerekC]

Not always:
(from https://www.politico.eu/article/11-boris-johnson-diplomatic-gaffes/ )

You don't think its Trump's revenge - a ringing endorsement from him would scupper Mr Johnson's leadership bid completely?

I wouldn't be too sure about that - the Brexiteers contain a goodly sprinkling of Trumpalongs.

 

[bramling]

Jo Swinson has announced she's running for PM; that will be for the LibDems who, according to a poll in the Times, are now ahead of Brexit (2 points) and the smaller parties (Tory, Labour)!
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk



Although it doesn't say, I understand the Greens are on 6% so in a General Election there would be a grand Lab/LD/SNP/G coalition wiping the Tories and Brexit out of the picture. However it's just one poll, and if we want a poll of the whole of the UK we know what to do....

EDIT Greens on 8%.

I think the very mention of such a coalition involving SNP would put many people off. Certainly for me it’s one reason I would vote Conservative in a general election, even if at present I’m not particularly pleased with their performance. The DUP is an influence in our politics I find slightly distasteful, but if they give me a slight sore throat then the prospect of SNP makes me throw up violently.

I don’t think such results would happen in a general election, especially after a campaign where (hopefully) domestic issues would be discussed. Never underestimate the willingness of people to alter their votes if they think *their* personal tax bill might increase. I do think we would likely see a nomansland result though, with no clear endorsement for any party.

It’s all a little academic as a lot may change between now and then. The Conservatives definitely will not want to call an election with the polls as they are, meanwhile Corbyn has the dilemma of whether to continue to push for a general election as a shot to nothing but with poor opinion poll figures, or wait in the hope that victory will come in 2022 albeit with the possibility that age might not be on his side and the Conservatives may have reuplifted (is that a word?!).