Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[yorksrob]

I

How the hell can anyone be pre-Boris now? If you've any regard for truth, honesty and accountability you're all for never hearing from the lying coward ever again.

None of this behaviour is new, he's done it since he was born - presumably his parents never said "no" to him. The only surprise is that there are people who still haven't worked him out.

You've got to wonder !

But I don't doubt he'll make a good columnist.

That said, compared to the current anti-rail at all costs government, I'd take Boris any day !

 

[MikeWM]

This seems to have been one of my most 'popular' posts ever :-/ I'm a little short on time today, so my apologies if I don't answer as fully as usual.

--

the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip will be getting a new MP by the end of July so they have got him to be grateful for that; and there is every chance that that person will be more responsive to the constituents' needs than their predecessor. In truth the constituency has been without an elected representative for some time now, just someone has been drawing the salary.

And yet, per the poll that was posted a few pages back, they would easily have re-elected him in a byelection. If they still wanted him as their representative, what we think ought to be irrelevant unless we live in the constituency.

--

For misdeeds, we have to have some sort of parliamentary oversight and sanctioning body. Without one, if the only possible course of action was a by-election, (1) it would impose a single sanction regardless of severity of the misdeed, and (2) there would be a significant chance that the MP concerned would get back in because of the party they represent

There could be sanctions that didn't affect the ability of the member to do the job they were sent there to do by the people. Pay docked, removal of privileges to use the terrace or to get discounted food and drink in canteens and bars around Parliament, I dunno, whatever. But other MPs ought to have no right to remove the ability of a duly elected member to participate in parliamentary proceedings and to vote. Only the constituents should be able to do that.

--

It would, of course, have only been twenty days if his own behaviour hadn't been further serious contempt of Parliament or are you saying that his actions over the weekend should have been without consequence?

Whatever consequences they may wish to impose should not impact on the individual MPs ability to perform the duties he was sent to Parliament by his constituents to perform.

There has to be powers available to Parliament to discipline its members when those members do things which get in the way of Parliament being able to carry out its business

But nothing Johnson did, whether deliberate or not, got in the way of Parliament being able to do its business. He didn't cause disorder or take the mace or anything like that.

Plus, it's worth noting, that the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip have hardly had any actual representation for sometime now. How many votes has Boris taken part in since he ceased being PM? Three, wasn't it?

As above, they looked like they would have re-elected him nevertheless. If they want a rubbish MP that's their business, not mine.

It strikes me that having a system where Parliament disciplines its own members but kicks the question back to the relevant constituents in serious enough cases to ask them if they still want this person to be their MP makes perfect sense.

I mostly agree, but as I said above, 'discipline' ought not to involve removing the ability of the MP to perform the duties he was sent to Parliament by his constituents to perform.

--

Johnson's own feckless behaviour caused this. Maybe the people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip should ask him? Though by all accounts he was a poor representative for his constituency and they will be better off with someone else.. anyone else.

They probably will, but that's not the point. As above, it looks like they would have re-elected him given the chance, which may be foolish but it is up to them.

--

If Boris was concerned about the representation of his constituents...

As you point out, quite possibly/probably he isn't. But that's not the point, the House of Commons is hardly making the point that he should be behaving better, by making things even worse. And once again, it looks like his constituents would have re-elected him given the chance, which once again is their decision and not ours.

--

They voted for someone who is known to lie, break rules and generally not give a toss about anyone but himself so in a way they have some of the responsibility for the consequences of that once the rules catchup with who they voted for.

That's interesting - I'd not heard that theory as to how a representative democracy is supposed to work before. If you don't vote for a representative that is 'acceptable' you should lose your right to representation for a while?

--

Probably whataboutery but this isn't a unique situation.

A suspended MP can still make representations to appropriate bodies on behalf of constituents. They just can't attend, speak in or vote in the chamber. That's exactly the situation the constituents of the Speaker and deputies are in the whole time, without any scope to replace their MP with one who will be more politically active.

Also, if an MP dies or resigns, their party must move the writ for the by-election, and unelected party managers have considerable leeway on how long they delay before doing so, denying those constituents any sort of formal representation in the process.

It isn't whataboutery, it is at the heart of how our system of representative democracy works.

The other two examples are also problematic, I agree, and ought to be dealt with better. But some problematic things already happening isn't a reason to accept other problematic things happening too.

--

Within this are sound reasons as to why he might not command the confidence of the house as Prime Minister, but they should have nothing to do with his removal or suspension as a member of parliament, which must be entirely in the hands of the people of his constituency, who are the only ones to judge him on his performance as their MP. This is a fundamental principle of any fair democratic system and was demonstrated when Ken Livingstone, as elected Mayor of London, successfully overturned in the courts a suspension imposed on him by a quasi judicial body, also for what many would regard as questionable behaviour.

The process has got to be seen to be fair, balanced and acting within appropriate limits, as one day in the future it might be applied to remove someone you agree with.

Good to see at least one other person in this thread understands what is at stake here. Yes, it is easy to go along with it because of who the process is applying to in this specific instance, but whatever one thinks of the individual and/or is pleased to see him 'fall from grace' in this way, the process is nevertheless simply wrong and actually dangerous.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How the hell can anyone be pre-Boris now? If you've any regard for truth, honesty and accountability you're all for never hearing from the lying coward ever again.

It's more complex than being pro- or anti- Boris (as it is with almost anyone else: Most people have both good and bad aspects to their personalities). I'm sure it's perfectly possibly to both condemn the lying and the general incompetence and lack of professionalism that seems to have characterized his Government while also at the same time respecting that there were also significant things he did achieve: For example, making sure the Brexit referendum result got honoured, being practically the first Western leader to make a big show of supporting Ukraine militarily when Russia invaded - thereby shaming other Western leaders into doing likewise; raising the profile of 'green' issues and tackling climate change within a Tory party that has traditionally often been quite anti-environmental; and so on.

 

[Busaholic]

Whatever one thinks of Johnson specifically - and I'm certainly no fan - it is very disturbing that the House of Commons now apparently thinks it can determine who sits in it *after* they have been fairly and duly elected by their constituency.

The only people who should be able to elect a representative to the House of Commons, and the only people who should be able to remove them again, are the electorate. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons that MPs aren't allowed to resign and have to go through an absurd workaround instead. This sets an incredibly dangerous precedent that the House of Commons appears to think it is more important than the electorate, whereas in actuality its very right to exist - and to pass laws we have to obey - stems from the will and consent of the electorate.

Ironically - though I'm sure this isn't the reason he's done it! - Johnson has arguably shown a greater respect for democracy by resigning his seat, thus ensuring his constituents will (sooner) continue to have representation in parliament.

Parliamentary sovereignty lies at the very heart of the British Constitution, and has done since the reign of James II. At one time Parliament had the powers to imprison or fine individuals found to be in contempt of the institution, but unfortunately imo these powers were allowed to lapse. A spell in the cells without communication with the outside world would do Johnson, and the rest of us, almost as much good as his mentor Trump.

 

[Typhoon]

And yet, per the poll that was posted a few pages back, they would easily have re-elected him in a byelection. If they still wanted him as their representative, what we think ought to be irrelevant unless we live in the constituency.

That has been his decision. Your point was that his constituents will have been deprived of an MP for an extended period, my point is that, because of his swift action, it will be a little over a month. (I am not sure that was what was intended).

If the figures were so favourable he could, on receiving the report, he could have cut out all that Kangaroo Court/ Witch Hunt stuff and just stated that. because of the report, he was standing down and allowing the constituents to decide whether they wanted him to remain as their MP in the same way that Carswell and Reckless did when they moved to UKIP. Instead he spouts off and has been sent to the sin bin for longer just like quite a few premiership footballers do when a ref calls a foul against them.

Frankly I find the idea that any group of MPs are a wise and impartial jury laughable.

I can't agree with that. One of my big beefs with Johnson is that he has damaged the Conservative Party. Whether we like it or not we are going to have periods when a Party is in power and out of power so I want a Conservative Party (and a Labour Party, for that matter) whose MPs work in the national interest; although I may not agree with their policies i want their aims to be honourable. There are MPs who do feel like that, at least two sit on the Privileges Committee Sadly, thanks to Johnson 2019 cull, there are fewer than in the past, even sadder, there will be fewer (probably) after the next election as some of those with consciences stand down. To give one example, I have always listened to what Charles Walker has said because it would have been thought through, I didn't always agree by any stretch but it wouldn't be spouted for the sake of having something to say, it would have been what he believed to be true, and he won't change that just because a whip tells him to, there are others just the same. I think I have had 8 MPs over my lifetime, across four constituencies (omitting those for a year or less), I think I would trust 5, including the most recent three (interestingly for thirty nine years these three have been in the governing party but not one of them has served in government office). I suspect we think badly about MPs because the ones we hear from are the ones who really have nothing (useful) to say.

 

[edwin_m]

That said, compared to the current anti-rail at all costs government, I'd take Boris any day !

I don't think the government is any more anti-rail now than in the latter days of the Johnson premiership. The tight DfT/Treasury control started during the pandemic and the Integrated Rail Plan cutting back the eastern leg was published in 2021. The reason is at least partly shortage of cash, which in turn is partly down to mistaken Tory policies of austerity and Brexit, the last of which probably wouldn't have happened without Johnson.

We do at least now have in Sunak a PM who isn't a total incompetent and serial liar - a low bar I know. But I think we'd agree that the country needs the whole lot of them kicking out of government.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think the government is any more anti-rail now than in the latter days of the Johnson premiership. The tight DfT/Treasury control started during the pandemic and the Integrated Rail Plan cutting back the eastern leg was published in 2021. The reason is at least partly shortage of cash, which in turn is partly down to mistaken Tory policies of austerity and Brexit, the last of which probably wouldn't have happened without Johnson.

We do at least now have in Sunak a PM who isn't a total incompetent and serial liar - a low bar I know. But I think we'd agree that the country needs the whole lot of them kicking out of government.

To be fair to Boris, we are at least, finally getting some reopenings, but yes, we are in agreement.

 

[nw1]

It's more complex than being pro- or anti- Boris (as it is with almost anyone else: Most people have both good and bad aspects to their personalities). I'm sure it's perfectly possibly to both condemn the lying and the general incompetence and lack of professionalism that seems to have characterized his Government while also at the same time respecting that there were also significant things he did achieve: For example, making sure the Brexit referendum result got honoured,

For some of us that is amongst the top reasons to dislike him

raising the profile of 'green' issues and tackling climate change within a Tory party that has traditionally often been quite anti-environmental;

I will give him that, to be fair. Even still, it's not enough to prevent him firmly being in the "bad PM" column IMO.

 

[brad465]

Here comes another by-election:

David Warburton quits as MP, triggering another by-election

The resignation will leave Rishi Sunak potentially facing four by-elections in the coming months.

www.bbc.co.uk

A Conservative MP who was suspended following allegations of sexual misconduct has resigned.
David Warburton, who represents Somerton and Frome in Somerset, is the fourth MP from his party to quit in the past eight days.
Mr Warburton said the past 14 months since allegations were published in a national newspaper had been "extraordinarily difficult".
He added that the allegations about him had been "malicious".
"My constituents in Somerton and Frome who elected me three times with overwhelming majorities have for a year been deprived of the voice they need," said Mr Warburton.
"I am so grateful for their many messages of support, and it is with sorrow that I have no choice but to provoke the upheaval of a by-election."

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Blimey! It's a like a mini-general-election! But only in Tory-held constituencies (plus likely one SNP one).

I'd expect this one to be a LibDem gain. The LibDems held Somerton and Frome until 2015, when they lost it on an extremely large swing, turning the seat into a notionally safe Tory one - well, 'safe' in normal circumstances. The LlibDems now need a 14.8% swing to take the seat, which would be a huge swing but still less than they achieved in all of Chesham and Amersham, North Shropshire, and Tiverton and Honiton.

Bit of trivia - in 2010 the (unsuccessful) Tory candidate was Annunziata Mary Rees-Mogg, sister of a certain Tory MP whose name currently escapes me .

 

[fgwrich]

Here comes another by-election:

David Warburton quits as MP, triggering another by-election

The resignation will leave Rishi Sunak potentially facing four by-elections in the coming months.

www.bbc.co.uk

Blimey! It's a like a mini-general-election! But only in Tory-held constituencies (plus likely one SNP one).

I'd expect this one to be a LibDem gain. The LibDems held Somerton and Frome until 2015, when they lost it on an extremely large swing, turning the seat into a notionally safe Tory one - well, 'safe' in normal circumstances. The LlibDems now need a 14.8% swing to take the seat, which would be a huge swing but still less than they've achieved in Tiverton and in Shrewsbury.

Bit of trivia - in 2010 the (unsuccessful) Tory candidate was Annunziata Mary Rees-Mogg, sister of a certain Tory MP whose name currently escapes me .

Well, it's nice of Mr Warburton not to make this one about Boris but a Cocaine and Sex Scandal instead

Reading into this one though, this is actually probably a good thing for the people of Somerton and Frome, Mr Warburton is the MP who was last seen in Westminster in April 2022 - Very AWOL and there were already calls for him to stand down.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Blimey! It's a like a mini-general-election! But only in Tory-held constituencies (plus likely one SNP one).

I'd expect this one to be a LibDem gain. The LibDems held Somerton and Frome until 2015, when they lost it on an extremely large swing, turning the seat into a notionally safe Tory one - well, 'safe' in normal circumstances. The LlibDems now need a 14.8% swing to take the seat, which would be a huge swing but still less than they achieved in all of Chesham and Amersham, North Shropshire, and Tiverton and Honiton.

Bit of trivia - in 2010 the (unsuccessful) Tory candidate was Annunziata Mary Rees-Mogg, sister of a certain Tory MP whose name currently escapes me .

They can take them all and Sunaks majority will be down to oh only 60 so the scorched earth policy will roll on as they've nothing to lose now

 

[brad465]

Blimey! It's a like a mini-general-election! But only in Tory-held constituencies (plus likely one SNP one).

Yes I have recently thought the way things are going we could have a de facto general election this way.

Bit of trivia - in 2010 the (unsuccessful) Tory candidate was Annunziata Mary Rees-Mogg, sister of a certain Tory MP whose name currently escapes me .

Who went on to be a short lived Brexit Party MEP. Had she won that seat in 2010 this would have course led to the setup of a brother and sister having seats next door to each other.

 

[skyhigh]

I wonder what effect this will have on the party...

BBC News - Video emerges of Tory staff partying during Covid

Michael Gove says sorry over Tory lockdown party video

Met police say they are "considering" new footage of a Christmas party at Tory HQ in December 2020.

www.bbc.co.uk

A video has emerged showing some Conservative Party workers drinking and dancing at a Christmas party during the Covid pandemic.

In the video, published by the Mirror, one person is heard saying it is OK to film "as long as we don't stream that we're, like, bending the rules".

 

[birchesgreen]

I wonder what effect this will have on the party...

Just entrench the attitudes on either side i suspect.

 

[duncanp]

Well it is good to know that we won't have any of that nonsense when the Labour party come to power.

People breaking the rules to the extent that they would have been sacked had they not resigned.

That only happens with the Tories.

Sue Gray ‘broke impartiality rules over Keir Starmer job’

Damning official Cabinet Office inquiry finds senior civil servant breached regulations and could have been sacked had she not quit

www.telegraph.co.uk

Sue Gray ‘broke impartiality rules over Keir Starmer job’​

Damning official Cabinet Office inquiry finds senior civil servant breached regulations and could have been sacked had she not quit

Sue Gray, the senior civil servant poached by Sir Keir Starmer, breached Whitehall impartiality rules and could have been suspended or sacked had she not quit, according to the damning findings of an official Cabinet Office inquiry.

An assessment signed off by Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, and the Government’s most senior lawyer concluded that Ms Gray “fell short” of the requirements of both the Civil Service Code and her employment contract when she quietly took part in talks about joining Labour as Sir Keir’s chief of staff.

The findings, seen by The Telegraph, will embarrass Ms Gray, who was formerly in charge of government propriety and ethics. It will also prompt fresh questions about the judgment of Sir Keir, who has repeatedly railed against “Tory sleaze”.

The Conservatives had previously questioned whether the way in which he poached Ms Gray had “undermined the rules and the impartiality of the Civil Service”.

Sue Gray ‘in breach of Civil Service Code’​

The internal Cabinet Office document was written by Darren Tierney, a successor of Ms Gray as director-general of propriety, and was marked “official” and “sensitive”.

The inquiry was launched following anger among ministers and civil servants about her decision to quit the Civil Service to take up a job at the highest levels of the opposition party.

Senior officials were concerned that the decision risked bringing the Civil Service into disrepute.

The document, dated April 27, stated: “SG’s contract, as with all permanent secretary contracts, was clear on the conduct expected of her, including with regard to declaring any conflicts as they arose.

“The Civil Service Code outlines the requirement on all civil servants to conduct themselves with integrity, openness, and impartiality.

“During the period in question, it is my view that SG fell short of these expectations and as a result acted in breach of the Civil Service Code as well as her contractual obligations.

“This is a position on which I have consulted Sarah Healey [permanent secretary of the Department for Levelling Up], the Cabinet Secretary, the Treasury Solicitor and HR colleagues; all of whom are in agreement with these conclusions and the underpinning analysis.”

The FDA, the Civil Service union that has been representing Ms Gray, said she denied breaching the Civil Service Code or her employment contract.

Sir Keir has also said he was “confident she hasn’t broken any of the rules”.

Ms Gray declined to cooperate with the internal inquiry and Dave Penman, the FDA’s general secretary, insisted it was his understanding that there was “no conclusion”.

Ms Gray is expected to join Labour as Sir Keir’s most senior aide from the autumn, having originally been approached last October while she was second permanent secretary at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

Whitehall’s Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) is separately expected to publish a recommendation that Ms Gray only starts work after taking six months’ gardening leave from her departure in March.

The disclosure will raise fresh questions about Ms Gray’s involvement in the investigations into Covid rule-breaking by Boris Johnson and other Conservative figures.

While at the Department for Levelling Up, she was commissioned by the then Prime Minister to conduct an inquiry into allegations of rule-breaking in Downing Street – a decision Mr Johnson has since suggested was a mistake due to questions about her “independence”.

Mr Tierney continued: “We cannot make any certain conclusions about what a disciplinary process would have found as one has not been undertaken as a result of SG’s resignation with immediate effect.

“Given her seniority, and the need for ministers to have confidence in their permanent secretaries, and the requirement not to bring the Civil Service into disrepute, there would have been a reasonable case for immediate suspension during any disciplinary action.

“Had a charge of gross misconduct been upheld, she would likely have been summarily dismissed.”

Labour ‘acting fast and loose’​

Five days after the document was written, Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, issued a written ministerial statement in which he referred to Mr Tierney’s investigation, stating: “This process has involved interviewing relevant persons to establish further details on the contact between Ms Gray and the leader of the opposition.

“Ms Gray was given the opportunity to make representations as part of this process but chose not to do so.”

Mr Dowden pointed out that, in addition to the requirements of the Civil Service Code, the Civil Service Management Code sets out that all senior officials are “in the ‘politically restricted’ category, which places further restrictions on their political activity”.

He added: “In addition, there is a requirement under the Directory of Civil Service Guidance, which underpins the Civil Service Code, that ‘contacts between senior civil servants and leading members of the opposition parties … should … be cleared with … ministers’”.

Addressing the Commons earlier this year, Jeremy Quin, the Cabinet Office minister, said: “Many across the House have noticed that the leader of the opposition has a tendency to claim a self-righteous monopoly on morals, but there are now serious questions as to whether Labour, by acting fast and loose, undermined the rules and the impartiality of the Civil Service.”

Mr Penman, who has been representing Ms Gray in discussions with her former employers, said: “The position of the Government is as of the written ministerial statement. There has been no conclusion in relation to whether Sue Gray breached the Ministerial Code.

“There was an agreement the investigation would be suspended pending the outcome of the Acoba process. The investigation did not conclude, it did not take evidence from Sue and therefore that is mere speculation.”

In May, Sir Keir said he “had no discussions with her whilst she was investigating Boris Johnson whatsoever”.

On Saturday, a Labour spokesman added: “The official process is Acoba and that is what we have consistently said we will comply with.”

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “We do not comment on private individuals.”

 

[Yew]

Well it is good to know that we won't have any of that nonsense when the Labour party come to power.

People breaking the rules to the extent that they would have been sacked had they not resigned.

That only happens with the Tories.

Sue Gray ‘broke impartiality rules over Keir Starmer job’

Damning official Cabinet Office inquiry finds senior civil servant breached regulations and could have been sacked had she not quit

www.telegraph.co.uk

I'm struggling to see how this is a story? If this person had not quit we would have had to sack them for taking another job? Quite simply, that article is a shoddily written hatchet job, that does a poor job of separating reality from fiction.

Surely if anything, the scandal is that their successor has apparently leaked an "OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE" document.

 

[duncanp]

I'm struggling to see how this is a story? If this person had not quit we would have had to sack them for taking another job? Quite simply, that article is a shoddily written hatchet job, that does a poor job of separating reality from fiction.

Surely if anything, the scandal is that their successor has apparently leaked an "OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE" document.

It is a story because an official Cabinet Office enquiry has found that Sue Gray broke impartiality rules.

An assessment signed off by Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, and the Government’s most senior lawyer concluded that Ms Gray “fell short” of the requirements of both the Civil Service Code and her employment contract when she quietly took part in talks about joining Labour as Sir Keir’s chief of staff.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm struggling to see how this is a story? If this person had not quit we would have had to sack them for taking another job? Quite simply, that article is a shoddily written hatchet job, that does a poor job of separating reality from fiction.

Uh?? Are you sure there aren't double standards here...

• Boris would have been suspended from Commons if he hadn't quit... It's a terrible scandal and he's widely accused of running away etc.
• Sue Gray would've been sacked if she hadn't quit.... You're making out that that's a non-story.

Now granted the stuff Boris had done leading to the situation was much worse than what Sue Gray had done - Boris was found to have lied etc. whereas Sue Gray was merely found to have breached impartiality - but surely breaking the rules and then quitting before you're sacked either is or isn't a problem. You can't be like, it's a problem if it's a Tory, but not a problem if it's a Labour supporter! Also, I don't think the issue with Sue Gray was simply that she took another job: It's that, while being employed in a job that requires complete political impartiality, she was breaking that impartiality by negotiating to join one of the political sides.

 

[Typhoon]

It is a story because an official Cabinet Office enquiry has found that Sue Gray broke impartiality rules.

An assessment signed off by Simon Case, the Cabinet Secretary, and the Government’s most senior lawyer concluded that Ms Gray “fell short” of the requirements of both the Civil Service Code and her employment contract when she quietly took part in talks about joining Labour as Sir Keir’s chief of staff.

Ironic that it was signed off by Simon Case as it wouldn't have been the 'Sue Gray' report if Case hadn't had to withdraw from the initial inquiry because a party had been held in his office. (I note that Case has been named as having played a minor - passive - role in a civil servant resigning and bringing a discrimination claim.)

As they seem to be running short of people with spotless records to chair inquiries, can I put myself forward. I did not attend parties - or, indeed, 'work meetings' - during lockdown (or since - I can't stand them*), I am not secretly negotiating to become a staffy at the Monster Raving Loony or any other political party, I don't own any Christmas jumpers or indulge in 'Dad dancing'. And I wouldn't want a place in the Lords at the end of it (it must be pretty claustrophobic considering the numbers).

* - 'I can't stand them' applies to both parties and work meetings - both are a complete waste of time!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As they seem to be running short of people with spotless records to chair inquiries, can I put myself forward. I did not attend parties - or, indeed, 'work meetings' - during lockdown (or since - I can't stand them*), I am not secretly negotiating to become a staffy at the Monster Raving Loony or any other political party, I don't own any Christmas jumpers or indulge in 'Dad dancing'. And I wouldn't want a place in the Lords at the end of it (it must be pretty claustrophobic considering the numbers).

Drat! You mean indulging in 'Dad dancing' makes you unsuitable? I was going to put my name forward until I saw that bit.

 

[brad465]

I wonder what effect this will have on the party...

BBC News - Video emerges of Tory staff partying during Covid

Michael Gove says sorry over Tory lockdown party video

Met police say they are "considering" new footage of a Christmas party at Tory HQ in December 2020.

www.bbc.co.uk

Almost none, as no prominent members besides Shaun Bailey were present. At the very least he needs his recent peerage stripped.

That said, it's currently the most read BBC article and Gove has had to apologise for it speaking to Laura Kuenssberg.

 

[dangie]

Eating my toast while listening to Laura Kuenssberg interviewing Michael Gove. While I understand every single word he’s saying, the sentence’s he’s making by putting them together are making no sense at all. Talk about not answering a question! Just like a random text generator……

 

[Gloster]

Bit of trivia - in 2010 the (unsuccessful) Tory candidate was Annunziata Mary Rees-Mogg, sister of a certain Tory MP whose name currently escapes me .

Who party officials, possibly as high as the leadership, suggested should change her name to Nancy Mogg when campaigning as it sounded less upper class. (It sounds like a joke, but isn’t.) To be fair to her, I think she decided against doing so.

 

[Typhoon]

Drat! You mean indulging in 'Dad dancing' makes you unsuitable? I was going to put my name forward until I saw that bit.

It refers to the video of the event at CCHQ (14 Dec 2020) for Lord Bailey's mayoral election team.

However, if you want my opinion, yes, 'Dad dancing' should exclude you from any position of high responsibility - clips will become a staple on 'Have I Got News For You' and other satirical shows in the same way that Biden falling over and Johnson on the zipwire are. After all you wouldn't have got William Ewart Gladstone and the Marquis of Salisbury dad dancing and we were an important country then. Maybe the downfall of the UK is down to dad dancing?

Almost none, as no prominent members besides Shaun Bailey were present. At the very least he needs his recent peerage stripped.

The event was already known about https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/extraordinary-image-shows-raucous-xmas-25699183 (15/12/21).

That, to me, is worse that the video clip - because Lord Bailey is there and prominent, and 24 people can be counted and there is clearly no attempt at social distancing.

 

[nw1]

Yes I have recently thought the way things are going we could have a de facto general election this way.

Who went on to be a short lived Brexit Party MEP. Had she won that seat in 2010 this would have course led to the setup of a brother and sister having seats next door to each other.

Even though Warburton was evidently not the ideal person to be the seat's MP, things would have been even worse if we'd have had another Rees-Mogg in the seat.

 

[duncanp]

Uh?? Are you sure there aren't double standards here...

• Boris would have been suspended from Commons if he hadn't quit... It's a terrible scandal and he's widely accused of running away etc.
• Sue Gray would've been sacked if she hadn't quit.... You're making out that that's a non-story.

Now granted the stuff Boris had done leading to the situation was much worse than what Sue Gray had done - Boris was found to have lied etc. whereas Sue Gray was merely found to have breached impartiality - but surely breaking the rules and then quitting before you're sacked either is or isn't a problem. You can't be like, it's a problem if it's a Tory, but not a problem if it's a Labour supporter! Also, I don't think the issue with Sue Gray was simply that she took another job: It's that, while being employed in a job that requires complete political impartiality, she was breaking that impartiality by negotiating to join one of the political sides.

If Sue Gray had exonerated Boris Johnson, and then shortly afterwards conducted secret negotations about applying for a job with the Conservative party, no doubt the media establishment and the Labour party would be frothing at the mouth about a conflict of interest.

Especially, one presumes, Beth Rigby from Sky News, who is an expert on breaking lockdown rules.

 

[nw1]

The event was already known about https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/extraordinary-image-shows-raucous-xmas-25699183 (15/12/21).

That, to me, is worse that the video clip - because Lord Bailey is there and prominent, and 24 people can be counted and there is clearly no attempt at social distancing.

Of course there isn't. Social distancing is for plebs.

Well, it's nice of Mr Warburton not to make this one about Boris but a Cocaine and Sex Scandal instead

Reading into this one though, this is actually probably a good thing for the people of Somerton and Frome, Mr Warburton is the MP who was last seen in Westminster in April 2022 - Very AWOL and there were already calls for him to stand down.

It looks, then, that, doubtless to his grave disappointment, Boris will lose the esteemed Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds post soon.

Why doesn't Dorries just hurry up and resign, by the way?

 

[Yew]

: It's that, while being employed in a job that requires complete political impartiality, she was breaking that impartiality by negotiating to join one of the political sides.

So her great scandal is that she interviewed for her next job whilst still being employed?

 

[Purple Train]

So her great scandal is that she interviewed for her next job whilst still being employed?

No, that she created a potential conflict of interest by not reporting it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I am in no way trying to excuse Sue Gray's actions given they do indeed seem to have broken the rules, but is there not form for parties led by people who have no experience of government to appoint someone who does to guide them, as Labour are doing?