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

[Busaholic]

Didn't realise Shapps was such a brown-noser of Johnson. See: Matt Hancock for "moderates" turned sycophants.

Who else would have given him a new job? Besides which, the earlier the Election the sooner he gets kicked out by his constituents. I bet Status Quo is his favourite group!

 

[jfollows]

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...bels-plot-1922-takeover-to-oust-boris-johnson) reports a significant effort on the part of the anti-Boris Conservative MPs to take over the 1922 committee, change its rules and hold a new vote of no confidence in him.

There are 18 committee positions up for election by secret ballot over the next three weeks, elections in which only back-bench MPs can vote. So there could be a "pro-Boris" and "anti-Boris" set of candidates, but given that between 60% and 75% of back-bench MPs voted against Boris in the recent vote, and given that some of the likely candidates such as Steve Baker are very good at organising factions and votes, it certainly sounds plausible. "Vote for us and get another vote on Boris sooner rather than later."

Essentially, the people who want Boris out are now getting well organised; clearly that wasn't the case prior to the recent vote. Equally, some of the voters might be getting tired of the whole thing and won't want anything to do with it.

The 1922 committee ballot is due to be held prior to parliament's summer recess on July 21. The date of the ballot will probably be announced next Wednesday, July 6th.

Conservative leadership

‘Ruthlessly organised’ Tory rebels plot 1922 takeover to oust Boris Johnson

Some who backed PM only last week now set sights on ‘clean sweep’ of backbench committee that could allow leadership vote

Aubrey Allegretti

@breeallegretti

Wed 29 Jun 2022 19.16 BST

Boris Johnson is facing a fresh threat from Conservative rebels planning a takeover of the powerful backbench committee that could force the prime minister from office.

Opponents of Johnson, including some who were loyal to him as recently as last week, have set their sights on a “clean sweep” of the 1922 Committeeamid a hardening of the mood against the prime minister.

The committee has the power to change the rules to allow a new vote of no confidence in Johnson within 12 months, and as soon as this autumn. In a secret ballot to decide its executive members, which will be held within three weeks, rebels hope to seize all 18 positions that are up for grabs.

The contest will be viewed as a proxy vote on whether the prime minister should face another no-confidence ballot, after this month’s saw more than 40% of his MPs oppose him.

Opposition to Johnson has hardened in the past week after a disastrous double byelection loss, his open pursuit of a third term and a series of scandals.

Two previous supporters of the prime minister told the Guardian they would not back him in another confidence vote, while negotiations have begun to agree a unified slate that would ratchet up pressure on the prime minister to quit.

Several “pork pie plotters” – a group of Tory MPs elected in 2019 who met to discuss Johnson’s demise in February – have recommenced talks. Other caucuses, such as the One Nation Conservatives and Thatcherite “92 Group” have also been quietly approached to ensure the slate reflects a broad range of MPs.

The campaign to oust Johnson in the last no-confidence vote was disjointed, but rebels are said to be “getting ruthlessly organised”.

Among those considering a run for 1922 Committee seats are five Tory MPs who have been critical of Johnson’s handling of the Partygate scandal.

Steve Baker and Andrew Bridgen have declared their intention to run; others contemplating the same include Aaron Bell, who submitted a letter of no confidence in Johnson in February, and Paul Holmes, who quit as a ministerial aide over Partygate. Chris Green, a former minister who said Johnson faced the “greatest political challenge to survive” after the recent no-confidence vote, is also planning to stand.

One MP said: “We’ve got to make sure this is done properly – there’s no room for mistakes like last time. We need to make sure there isn’t a split in the vote because there will almost certainly be a pro-Boris slate, too.”

Only backbenchers are allowed to vote in the 1922 Committee election, whose likely date could be announced next Wednesday.

MPs crunching the numbers from the last no-confidence vote believe that given 41% called for Johnson to quit and that most in government can be relied on to have remained loyal, the vast majority of those who will get a say in the 1922 Committee election are opposed to his leadership.

Some current members of the committee are understood to want to cut the time Johnson is immune from another challenge to his premiership from 12 months.

While the controversial move would not happen immediately, it would be a possible emergency course of action should Johnson be damaged further by the privileges committee investigation into whether he misled parliament over Partygate.

The 1922 Committee has an 18-strong leadership group. Of the 10 current executive members, four are seen as being publicly supportive of the prime minister. Two have stepped down after becoming parliamentary private secretaries. Five of the committee’s six officers are believed to oppose Johnson.

While some rebels said they were aiming for a “clean sweep” of the positions, one insisted it was not about “kicking off all pro-Boris” members but ensuring there was a sufficient number who “would be open to listening to how people genuinely feel”.

Government whips are understood to be keen to avoid appearing to interfere in the selection process. But supporters of the prime minister fear the contest will have echoes of the no-confidence vote, when his allies in government were seen as being too hands-off. “There’s a misplaced confidence going on again,” one admitted.

While a decision about whether to change the rules will be up to the new committee, the former Tory party leader Iain Duncan Smith said it would be “shifty” for the decision to be taken by a handful of MPs. He called instead for the full parliamentary party to be balloted about such a move.

Some rebels are uncomfortable about “changing the rules in the middle of the game” and instead want to “use other mechanisms” including putting pressure on Conservative association chairs and party donors to publicly call for the prime minister to be replaced.

“Every day Boris goes on is another day wasted when we could be having a leadership contest and be drawing a line under this,” said one.A slate of anti-Johnson candidates could also rile some wavering Conservative MPs, who believe the 1922 Committee should assist with boundary and selection issues rather than focusing mainly on leadership issues.

Johnson has lost some supporters over the past week due to the recent byelection results, which saw the Tories lose Wakefield in West Yorkshire and Tiverton and Honiton in Devon, prompting the resignation of the party co-chair Oliver Dowden.

Their anger was further compounded by the prime minister saying he was “actively thinking” about a third term, his refusal to undergo a “psychological transformation”, and sleaze scandals including allegations he tried to secure taxpayer-funded jobs for his partner and secure £150,000 from a party donor to build a treehouse at Chequers.

Earlier this week, Johnson refused to comment on the unhappiness of some MPs, saying he would not engage in political commentary.

Some backbenchers who voted against him earlier this month have said they will respect the result and urged colleagues to do the same. Andrea Leadsom, the former business secretary, told the BBC on Wednesday: “There was a confidence vote, he won it … Whether the media like it or not, we then move on.”

 

[Mikw]

Really? Could you give some examples to substantiate that allegation



This seems to me to show a misunderstanding of the arguments for Brexit that keeps coming up over and over again: To be clear, lots of people voted for Brexit because they wanted Parliament/the UK to be sovereign in a way that they felt was not the case as long as the UK remained a member of the EU. Many of those people heard all the arguments that this would cause some economic damage, and - so far as we can tell - felt that this was a price worth paying for what they saw as 'independence'. They voted for Brexit, we got Brexit, and as anticipated there was some economic damage. I don't see how, in that light, having the Government take action to help the economy somehow implies ministers having to say they were wrong on Brexit. And that's even before you factor in that Covid and Russia have each separately caused massive economic damage, and separating out those impacts from the consequences of Brexit is very hard to do with any precision, which makes the whole area very fuzzy anyway.

I do remember various ministers trotting out the line that there are "no downsides" and nothing economically would change at points.

All the studies and genuine expert forecasters who disputed it were dismissed as "project fear" at the time.

And of course, we were soverign in the EU.

 

[Shrop]

The unbelievable has happened and Grant Shapps, having made a total dog's dinner of his Transport brief, is seriously being touted as the next Conservative leader! Is Chris Grayling unavailable?

In fairness everybody always makes a dogs dinner of the Transport brief. It's the Parliamentary remit which Ministers hate most and have the least competence with. Yes Minister summed it all up brilliantly right back in 1982, and nothing has changed since.

 

[oxfordray1]

In fairness everybody always makes a dogs dinner of the Transport brief. It's the Parliamentary remit which Ministers hate most and have the least competence with. Yes Minister summed it all up brilliantly right back in 1982, and nothing has changed since.

Indeed. Transport Supremo or as it turned out, Transport Muggins.

 

[brad465]

Karma may be along shortly. This little snippet from a report in the Guardian..

No 10 staff will be able to give evidence confidentially to inquiry into whether PM lied over Partygate, committee says​

The Commons privileges committee has issued a statement after its first meeting to consider its inquiry into whether Boris Johnson lied to MPs about Partygate. It has issued a wide-ranging call for evidence, and it is inviting whistleblowers to give evidence anonymously if they want.

This is what I believe will ultimately finish Johnson if he hasn't gone before the committee concludes. It's looking almost certain Johnson will have been found to have lied to Parliament over Partygate, and a suspension of a long enough timeframe to force a recall petition in his seat will be inevitable after that (the suspension would have to be voted on in Parliament, after the Paterson debacle showed why not doing so is bad). This could then lead to the awkward situation of Johnson not being an MP while remaining PM (I can't ever see him resigning), and unless the Tory party rules have been changed, Johnson won't be removable as party leader, which will get very messy.

 

[alex397]

The Private Eye allegations that an MP walked in on De Pfeffel and Carrie in a “compromising situation” (the Eye gives further detail on what this was!) are stomach churning. And of course, if an ordinary person was found in this situation in a workplace, they’d be sacked on the spot.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Private Eye allegations that an MP walked in on De Pfeffel and Carrie in a “compromising situation” (the Eye gives further detail on what this was!) are stomach churning. And of course, if an ordinary person was found in this situation in a workplace, they’d be sacked on the spot.

Do you often use a third name rather than a surname or a first name when referring to people? Why not go the "whole hog" and find a similar third or middle name for "Carrie"?

I have no less than four first names (thanks to Mother in 1945) and in all my 77 years, no-one has ever referred to me by the third of these....."Damian"

 

[alex397]

Do you often use a third name rather than a surname or a first name when referring to people? Why not go the "whole hog" and find a similar third or middle name for "Carrie"?

No, I just like to use any other name rather than Boris - a name used just to enforce his cartoonish character.

 

[brad465]

Do you often use a third name rather than a surname or a first name when referring to people? Why not go the "whole hog" and find a similar third or middle name for "Carrie"?

I have no less than four first names (thanks to Mother in 1945) and in all my 77 years, no-one has ever referred to me by the third of these....."Damian"

We're supposed to be a democracy, where we should be entitled to call politicians whatever we wish, as long as the language isn't too foul/profane.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Private Eye allegations that an MP walked in on De Pfeffel and Carrie in a “compromising situation” (the Eye gives further detail on what this was!) are stomach churning. And of course, if an ordinary person was found in this situation in a workplace, they’d be sacked on the spot.

I read it. Ta for the heads up

 

[Lost property]

We're supposed to be a democracy, where we should be entitled to call politicians whatever we wish, as long as the language isn't too foul/profane.

A Mr Bevan and a Ms Rayner defined them perfectly...never thought Mr Bevan's would be surpassed, until Ms Rayner kindly proved otherwise.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We're supposed to be a democracy, where we should be entitled to call politicians whatever we wish, as long as the language isn't too foul/profane.

A most unusual view of democracy and one not often given as an example of democracy.

 

[Typhoon]

The Private Eye allegations that an MP walked in on De Pfeffel and Carrie in a “compromising situation” (the Eye gives further detail on what this was!) are stomach churning. And of course, if an ordinary person was found in this situation in a workplace, they’d be sacked on the spot.

You do realise that your post will have considerably boosted sales figures of the Eye? It will be trebles all round in Greek Street

Have secret cameras been installed without the PMs knowledge? I think we should be told.

More importantly, is it a cunning plan No. 10 have put together to restore the PMs popularity with the public (or at least some of them)?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Private Eye allegations that an MP walked in on De Pfeffel and Carrie in a “compromising situation” (the Eye gives further detail on what this was!) are stomach churning. And of course, if an ordinary person was found in this situation in a workplace, they’d be sacked on the spot.

How would you view the matter of President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Howsoever, I just cannot visualise Jeremy Corbyn in a situation similar that that.

You do realise that your post will have considerably boosted sales figures of the Eye? It will be trebles all round in Greek Street

I was not aware that Greek Street (the one I know in the centre of Stockport) had such a claim to fame. There is a pub called the Armoury on there., where I suppose "trebles" could be quaffed.

No, I just like to use any other name rather than Boris - a name used just to enforce his cartoonish character.

So you would have no problems in referring to Sir Kier Starmer as "Rodney" then?

 

[Typhoon]

I was not aware that Greek Street (the one I know in the centre of Stockport) had such a claim to fame. There is a pub called the Armoury on there., where I suppose "trebles" could be quaffed.

I can only assume that you are unaware that Greek Street was twice the home of the Eye and. even though they have moved, their fortnightly lunch (presumably taken just after the latest edition has been 'put to bed') and, at one time at least, featured regularly in the periodical.
It is (apparently) the home of numerous diverse restaurants and places of entertainment, I would guess 'bohemian' would be a decent description. It is included in at least one Hogarth print.

It was an attempt to lighten up the thread as it was teetering on the combative. It obviously failed.

(I should have added that 'trebles all round' used to occur in an Eye strip - 'The Directors'?)

 

[birchesgreen]

Is the MP named? I guess we'll know who it is anyway as they will have the haunted look of someone who has seen what Hell looks like.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Private Eye allegations that an MP walked in on De Pfeffel and Carrie in a “compromising situation” (the Eye gives further detail on what this was!) are stomach churning. And of course, if an ordinary person was found in this situation in a workplace, they’d be sacked on the spot.

Getting back onto the topic and getting a bit more serious (and possibly making the thread more combative again ), what Private Eye describes is an allegation that Boris and Carrie were engaging in consensual sexual activity in Boris's office. Assuming the allegation is true, whether or not it's a problem really depends on the expected level of privacy in that office. Unless it was somewhere particularly public - and the Private Eye report suggests that it wasn't - it certainly doesn't seem to me per se like a sack-on-the-spot type of offence. I mean - there have been times in the past when I've done comparable stuff with my girlfriend of the time, and don't get any sense that I'm unusual in that regard. This feels to me like the kind of story that is only going to be interesting if you already dislike Boris (or if you like gossip ). In terms of ethics, I'd be rather more concerned about the suggestions that this was an extra-marital affair at a time when he was married to someone else. But then, there's not really anything new in that...

 

[bspahh]

In terms of ethics, I'd be rather more concerned about the suggestions that this was an extra-marital affair at a time when he was married to someone else. But then, there's not really anything new in that...

... or that it was with someone who he had proposed to be the Chief of Staff at the Foreign office, of the Conservative Friends of Russia.

I don't know who was the colleague, but I have seen comments about Gavin Williamson getting a knighthood not long afterwards.

Politically, I think its the type of thing that will play badly with factions of the "Conservative" party.

 

[DarloRich]

In terms of ethics, I'd be rather more concerned about the suggestions that this was an extra-marital affair at a time when he was married to someone else.

that is the key point. in any event he is hardly the first person to have an affair. I havent read the Eye yet but assume he wasn't , erm, discussing Ugandan affairs over a copy of Magna Carta or a portrait of the Queen!

 

[Jon_jpwh]

The Private Eye allegations that an MP walked in on De Pfeffel and Carrie in a “compromising situation” (the Eye gives further detail on what this was!) are stomach churning. And of course, if an ordinary person was found in this situation in a workplace, they’d be sacked on the spot.

The allegation is that this happened when he was Foreign Secretary, so perhaps they were discussing Uganda

 

[brad465]

A most unusual view of democracy and one not often given as an example of democracy.

Okay, how about right to free speech?

 

[Gloster]

I take the attitude, “Who cares who they screw, so long as it isn’t the country.” Even though I find him thoroughly distasteful I will generally apply this equally to Johnson. I was somewhat less impressed by the way he treated his second wife, particularly when you consider that, as I understand, she was being treated for cancer towards the end of the marriage. His did not appear to be the behaviour of someone who showed consideration for others: if he behaves that way to his wife, how will he behave to others?

As far as names are concerned, I grew up with PMs who were Mr Wilson, Mr Heath, Mr Callaghan, etc. With Mrs/Margaret Thatcher and Mr/John Major it started to slip, then it was Tony Blair, Gordon Brown (who didn’t appear comfortable with the informality), David Cameron and Theresa May (with an ‘h’). Finally, we have got (down?) to Boris: he must be a friend as we are all on first name terms. If we are going to respect our leaders they should be at a distance: remember the teacher who tried to be pals with his class.

 

[nw1]

We're supposed to be a democracy, where we should be entitled to call politicians whatever we wish, as long as the language isn't too foul/profane.

Ah, but Alex is not just an ordinary politician. He's special, don't you know.

Okay, how about right to free speech?

Yes, I suppose certain regimes are nominal democracies, but woe betide you if you criticise the leader...

 

[AlterEgo]

I just cannot visualise Jeremy Corbyn in a situation similar that that.

Probably best you don't try too hard!

Ah, but Alex is not just an ordinary politician. He's special, don't you know.



Yes, I suppose certain regimes are nominal democracies, but woe betide you if you criticise the leader...

Refusing to call Boris Johnson Boris Johnson is so petty and daft. That's his preferred name, and if you use something other than someone's preferred name it makes you look silly.

 

[nw1]

Refusing to call Boris Johnson Boris Johnson is so petty and daft. That's his preferred name, and if you use something other than someone's preferred name it makes you look silly.

No it doesn't.

The comments that myself and others make in calling him "De Pfeffel" or "Alex" are satirising the way that he is referred to as "Boris" by the media and his fans, unlike all other recent prime ministers.

Why should we have to have such excessive and un-called-for respect for politicians that we have to call them by their "preferred name" all the time? If they showed more respect to us (e.g following the lockdown laws that they forced us to live under, for starters) then maybe we would have more respect for them.

If making fun of politicians was not allowed, Private Eye would be out of business, for one thing. As would much satire.

 

[DarloRich]

I understand, she was being treated for cancer towards the end of the marriage

The man is a cad, a bounder and a rotter all in one body!

 

[nw1]

So you would have no problems in referring to Sir Kier Starmer as "Rodney" then?

Presumably we mean the Only Fools and Horses character; if someone did see a resemblance between the two, that would be perfectly acceptable satire.

 

[AlterEgo]

The comments that myself and others make in calling him "De Pfeffel" or "Alex" are satirising the way that he is referred to as "Boris" by the media and his fans, unlike all other recent prime ministers.

Then call him Johnson or Boris Johnson, as you would with any other Prime Minister.

Why should we have to have such excessive and un-called-for respect for politicians that we have to call them by their "preferred name" all the time?

Do you think calling someone by their preferred name is excessive respect for someone? I rather suspect you don't actually think that. I go by a preferred name rather than the one on my full birth certificate; I don't think asking anyone to call me that - even if they think I'm an arsehole - is some sort of excessive request.

If making fun of politicians was not allowed, Private Eye would be out of business, for one thing. As would much satire.

Of course it's allowed, but I don't think your level of satire is up to that of Private Eye, it's just silly.

Presumably we mean the Only Fools and Horses character; if someone did see a resemblance between the two, that would be perfectly acceptable satire.

Oh right so only if there's a resemblance, and not because they think he's a tool they have no respect for.

 

[nw1]

Of course it's allowed, but I don't think your level of satire is up to that of Private Eye, it's just silly.

We can't all be Ian Hislops; give us a break! I don't understand what is so provocative about using non-rude words to lightly poke fun of the prime minister and those who appear to adulate him. If you don't like us using "De Pfeffel" or "Alex" to describe him, just ignore it. Like I would if someone was to call Starmer "Rodney" (see below).

Oh right so only if there's a resemblance, and not because they think he's a tool they have no respect for.

By resemblance I mean character, not looks. I meant: if someone thinks Starmer has a Rodney-like character and a bit of an idiot, it's quite OK to satirise him in that way.