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

[brad465]

On TalkRadio this morning Sunak was asked the at the moment controversial question "What is a woman?", and he didn't give a straight answer, proceeding to say he agreed with what the PM said in PMQs yesterday, before proceeding to reveal he couldn't recall what the PM said (Johnson said “when it comes to distinguishing between man and woman, the basic facts of biology remain overwhelmingly important”).

My guess is he was attempting to hide behind the PM in the hope of not getting too controversial, but by failing to give a straight answer on what is a largely pro-Tory radio station, he's not helping the party's image when they're trying to stand above Labour on identity politics, as reinforced by this tweet from a fellow presenter:

https://twitter.com/TVKev/status/1506965070609371143

Rishi Sunak is the latest politician to refuse to define what a woman is. This is the trouble with the Tories. Most of them are just as woke as the daft Labour mob. I'm all for trans rights, live your life in whatever way makes you happy. But isn't a woman an adult female human?

 

[XAM2175]

My guess is he was attempting to hide behind the PM in the hope of not getting too controversial, but by failing to give a straight answer on what is a largely pro-Tory radio station, he's not helping the party's image when they're trying to stand above Labour on identity politics, as reinforced by this tweet from a fellow presenter:

https://twitter.com/TVKev/status/1506965070609371143

Rishi Sunak is the latest politician to refuse to define what a woman is. This is the trouble with the Tories. Most of them are just as woke as the daft Labour mob. I'm all for trans rights, live your life in whatever way makes you happy. But isn't a woman an adult female human?

It feels like a good moment to note that trans people are actual people, and not just involuntary bit-players in yet another stoush over 'identity politics'.

(and to further clarify that this is a general observation rather than one directed at you, @brad465)

 

[The Ham]

It feels like a good moment to note that trans people are actual people, and not just involuntary bit-players in yet another stoush over 'identity politics'.

(and to further clarify that this is a general observation rather than one directed at you, @brad465)

Indeed, however I do wonder if some who feel that they need to identify as something other than what genetics would identify them as are in that position because society has made them feel that they don't confirm to society's view of what a man/woman is.

I know that there's likely to be other reasons too and it's much more nuanced for many (hence reference to some).

For instance it's entirely possible for typical gender roles to be undertaken by the "wrong" person, and we should be accepting* of those who do.

* In actual fact we should be encouraging that. For instance having female engineers can bring insight to the engineering process which sits outside of that experienced by their male counterparts. For example, when designing roads, men who haven't had to push a child in a buggy on the school run don't always have the same practical understanding about the benefit of the provision of dropped kerbs. Even if they do then sometimes it's harder for them to then apply that to someone who is then having to have to push a wheelchair about. (Of course that's not specific to gender, as it's possible to have men that can do that, however by having a wider range of experiences and skills to draw upon within a team then the outcome is likely to better for everyone in society).

It's not been a great few days for Rishi Sunak, first he's had a bit of a bad time with the photo opp of filling "his" car, which turned out to be an employee of the Sainsbury's petrol station he was at, there were then a few things which went wrong, the first is a biker gesturing in the background of an interview on the forecourt (drinking and money, so nothing rude):

Video: Moment man makes gestures behind Rishi Sunak during petrol photo-op | Daily Mail Online

The interview interruption happened during millionaire Rishi Sunak's mini-Budget photo opportunity at a petrol station in London.

www.dailymail.co.uk

At the same photo opp when going to make payment he then messes up by presenting his card, rather than the drink or snack item to the barcode reader:

Rishi Sunak mocked after struggling to pay for petrol in embarrassing video

The millionaire Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared unsure of how to make a purchase in a Sainsbury's after his Spring Statement.

www.dailyrecord.co.uk

There's also been much criticism of the fact that due to the significant rise in fuel costs that the 5p cut is still less than the extra 7p which the government had been taking in tax due to the increase.

Likewise whilst the city in NI payments is welcomed by many, it still doesn't help the poorest in society, as someone on minimum wage would have to work about 20 hours a week before they started paying NI on the old limit. However those in benefits often limit their working week to 16 hours, as that's the cut-off before they start to see their benefits being cut.

Arguably it would have been better if the threshold had increased by (say) £1,500 and the £20/week extra benefit which was provided during COVID-19 was reinstated. As whilst that would have meant that more would have seen their NI payments increase it would have been fairly limited for those earning £30,000 and even for someone earning £40,000 still quite a bit less than would have been the case without the change.

Before anyone suggests otherwise, my suggested change would have cost my household more than what's happening. However the original NI change had been factored into our thinking, as had the extra fuel costs. In that we're fortune in that we both have good jobs paying enough for us to have a reasonable lifestyle as long as we are content with what we have and don't always want to have what others have (for instance our car hasn't been changed in the last few years and was over 5 years old when we got it, we don't go overseas for our holidays and mostly stay with family, our house is a fairly modest 3 bed, we rarely need to use loans [other than the Mortgage on our house] as we have a little bit set aside for unexpected costs, etc. Before anyone asks what we spend our money on, we have 3 children and have chosen to have one of us work 3 days a week, so that our children see us a bit during the week.).

 

[brad465]

Partygate fines are imminent apparently:

Partygate: Met Police to issue first fines, sources say

Westminster sources suggest at least 15 fines for Covid rule breaches will be handed out initially.

www.bbc.co.uk

The first fines for breaches of Covid-19 rules as part of a police investigation into government lockdown parties will be issued soon, the BBC has been told.
Westminster sources suggested the force will issue at least 15 fines initially.
The Metropolitan Police investigation into 12 events held across government was launched in late January.
It came after an internal inquiry passed information to the force. The Guardian said fines were "imminent".
The Met has not commented and Downing Street has been approached for comment.
Government sources told the BBC the Met could issue the fines on Tuesday.
For months, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government were dogged by reports of staff parties in Downing Street when Covid restrictions were in place.
The police investigation was launched after a separate inquiry was undertaken by senior civil servant Sue Gray. Of the 16 alleged parties or gatherings listed in her initial findings, the police are investing all but of four of them.

The policy inquiry, called Operation Hillman, is examining 12 gatherings on eight dates to see if Covid regulations were broken.
Mr Johnson is known to have attended at least three of the gatherings.
He has said he did not believe he was breaking any rules, but apologised "for the things we simply didn't get right".
The Met said it would contact people "believed to have taken part in the events in question to get their accounts".
The force had sent questionnaires to dozens of staff members, aides and ministers, including Mr Johnson and Chancellor Rishi Sunak.
Officers have already been supplied with more than 300 photographs and 500 pages of material, from the inquiry led by Ms Gray.

I suspect the Government want them issued ASAP before the local election campaign is properly underway and the local elections imminent, and to hope that someone doesn't go leaking photos during the campaign.

 

[Typhoon]

Partygate fines are imminent apparently:

Partygate: Met Police to issue first fines, sources say

Westminster sources suggest at least 15 fines for Covid rule breaches will be handed out initially.

www.bbc.co.uk

I suspect the Government want them issued ASAP before the local election campaign is properly underway and the local elections imminent, and to hope that someone doesn't go leaking photos during the campaign.

I think he is talking about you, Dom!

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Incoming...

https://news.met.police.uk/news/op-hillman-covid-19-regulation-breaches-update-445031

Op Hillman - Covid-19 regulation breaches update​

The investigation into allegations of breaches of COVID-19 regulations in Whitehall and Downing Street has now progressed to the point where the first referrals for fixed penalty notices (FPN) will be made to ACRO Criminal Records Office.
We will today initially begin to refer 20 fixed penalty notices to be issued for breaches of Covid-19 regulations. The ACRO Criminal Records Office will then be responsible for issuing the FPNs to the individual following the referrals from the MPS.

 

[SteveM70]

“Begin to refer” for goodness sake. Why is it taking so long?

 

[MattRat]

“Begin to refer” for goodness sake. Why is it taking so long?

I'm sure it will all make sense soon enough, when we get the list of names fined, which will also tell us who wasn't fined (that we know was probably at the parties).....

 

[DerekC]

But we all know now that we aren't going to get a list of names fined - so room for more obfuscation and delay.

 

[JKF]

It’s just the first tranche of fines anyway, likely for minimal offenders whose guilt is not contentious and a small fine that won’t be challenged, rather than ‘organisers’/‘instigators’ who will face bigger fines and whose roles need to be firmly established before they get a ticket.

 

[brad465]

Yesterday Sunak effectively likened the treatment of his wife to Will Smith's wife, the former regarding alleged business dealings/holdings with Russia, in contradiction to Sunak talking about businesses ceasing trade in/with Russia:

I know how Will Smith felt about his wife being criticised, says Rishi Sunak

The chancellor speaks out over criticism of his wife, who owns shares in a firm operating in Russia.

www.bbc.co.uk

Rishi Sunak has said he finds it "very upsetting" that his wife has faced criticism over shares she owns in a tech company operating in Russia.
The chancellor compared his feelings to those of film star Will Smith, whose own wife was mocked at the Oscars.
But he joked: "At least I didn't get up and slap anybody, which is good."
Mr Sunak's wife Akshata Murty owns shares thought to be worth more than £400m in Indian firm Infosys, founded by her father, Narayana.
The chancellor has himself come in for several days of criticism over last week's Spring Statement, which opposition parties say did too little to address the spiralling cost of living.

He told the BBC's Newscast podcast: "I think it's totally fine for people to take shots at me. It's fair game. I'm the one sitting here and that's what I signed up for."
But he added: "It's very upsetting and, I think, wrong for people to try and come at my wife, and you know, beyond that actually, with regard to my father-in-law, for whom I have nothing but enormous pride and admiration for everything that he's achieved.
"And no amount of attempted smearing is going to make me change that because he's wonderful and has achieved a huge amount."
Mr Sunak also mentioned England cricket captain Joe Root, whose team lost a Test series to the West Indies at the weekend, and Mr Smith, who slapped comedian Chris Rock in the face when he mocked his wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, over her alopecia at Sunday's Oscars.

What he said has garnered a lot of attention, and the BBC article was the most read for a long time yesterday, probably because the Will Smith incident has been very prolific.

What I can't easily tell is how this will actually be perceived and whether or not what he said will help him. The attention overall might help, which is probably what he was going for, but the remarks and subsequent attention will have exposed more people to seeing the very high wealth of his wife (higher than the Queen) and into her apparent dealings in a firm operating in Russia. Were all this happening at the height of Sunak's popularity, the remarks would have easily been dismissed and not gained much traction. However, his approval is at an all time low, which will make negative headlines/perceptions stronger.

 

[WelshBluebird]

What I can't easily tell is how this will actually be perceived

I really hope it will be perceived as it is - someone who is in one of the highest positions of power in the country disliking the fact people are trying to hold him to account for breaking the ministerial code and having a clear conflict of interest.

Its actually been one of the hallmarks of this government, ontop of the regular lies and U-turns, the need for them to be absolutely outraged when the media or the public try to hold them to account. It is almost like they can't believe they are being questioned by us mere plebs.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I really hope it will be perceived as it is - someone who is in one of the highest positions of power in the country disliking the fact people are trying to hold him to account for breaking the ministerial code and having a clear conflict of interest.

Eh????? Rishi Sunak's remarks that are being discussed here, as quoted by the BBC are:

"I think it's totally fine for people to take shots at me. It's fair game. I'm the one sitting here and that's what I signed up for."
But he added: "It's very upsetting and, I think, wrong for people to try and come at my wife, and you know, beyond that actually, with regard to my father-in-law, for whom I have nothing but enormous pride and admiration for everything that he's achieved.

Could you explain how that equates do disliking people trying to hold him to account for breaking the ministerial code? (And for that matter in what manner he's broken the ministerial code?)

 

[WelshBluebird]

Eh????? Rishi Sunak's remarks that are being discussed here, as quoted by the BBC are:



Could you explain how that equates do disliking people trying to hold him to account for breaking the ministerial code? (And for that matter in what manner he's broken the ministerial code?)

The conversation was specifically about the fact his wife holds a significant financial interest in a company making money partly in Russia (Infosys) and that Sunak is complaining that people are taking issue with his wife about that. The ministerial code clearly says that ministers need to declare not just their own interests, but those of their spouses too. So because he is a minister, Sunak is completely wrong that his wife has nothing to do with this. He very much did sign up for his wife being part of this too - if he didn't know what then maybe he shouldn't be in such a position of power!

And as for how he has broken the code, that is very very simple. Neither him or his wife have declared the financial interest she has in Infosys. Even without the Russia element this would be breaking the code. But given the current situation on top of that, I'd say it very much falls into conflict of interest too given we are essentially in an economic war with Russia.

 

[Busaholic]

The conversation was specifically about the fact his wife holds a significant financial interest in a company making money partly in Russia (Infosys) and that Sunak is complaining that people are taking issue with his wife about that. The ministerial code clearly says that ministers need to declare not just their own interests, but those of their spouses too. So because he is a minister, Sunak is completely wrong that his wife has nothing to do with this. He very much did sign up for his wife being part of this too - if he didn't know what then maybe he shouldn't be in such a position of power!

And as for how he has broken the code, that is very very simple. Neither him or his wife have declared the financial interest she has in Infosys. Even without the Russia element this would be breaking the code. But given the current situation on top of that, I'd say it very much falls into conflict of interest too given we are essentially in an economic war with Russia.

So now it's just down to the one contender to replace Johnson=Liz Truss. Who will rid me of this damned government?

 

[brad465]

So now it's just down to the one contender to replace Johnson=Liz Truss. Who will rid me of this damned government?

Sunak more or less killed off his chances of becoming PM with his poor response to cost of living concerns so far, regardless of what level of impact this situation regarding his wife has on top.

 

[island]

“Begin to refer” for goodness sake. Why is it taking so long?

The FPNs are issued centrally and posted rather than being done by individual officers.

This was done, at least in part, because the fines and rules were changing so often that by the time a book of tickets had been printed and distributed, they'd be out of date.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The conversation was specifically about the fact his wife holds a significant financial interest in a company making money partly in Russia (Infosys) and that Sunak is complaining that people are taking issue with his wife about that. The ministerial code clearly says that ministers need to declare not just their own interests, but those of their spouses too. So because he is a minister, Sunak is completely wrong that his wife has nothing to do with this. He very much did sign up for his wife being part of this too - if he didn't know what then maybe he shouldn't be in such a position of power!

And as for how he has broken the code, that is very very simple. Neither him or his wife have declared the financial interest she has in Infosys. Even without the Russia element this would be breaking the code. But given the current situation on top of that, I'd say it very much falls into conflict of interest too given we are essentially in an economic war with Russia.

I think it's more nuanced than that. The point Sunak is making isn't that his wife is nothing to do with this, it's more that (to paraphrase) she's not a politician and therefore it's not reasonable to be attacking her as if she was. So I can't see that anything he's said justifies your implied assertion that he's trying to avoid scrutiny of himself.

To put a bit more information on it, the company concerned, Infosys, was so far as I can make out founded by her (Indian) father, Narayana Murthy. Akshata (Sunak's wife) appears to own about 1% of the shares - which is enough to receive dividends but probably not enough to have any significant influence in how the company is run. It's an Indian company and therefore not subject to UK sanctions, and has some presence in Russia (they claim, a small presence). Personally, if it was me, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable directly holding shares in a company that is active in Russia, and I'd be asking myself what action I should be taking, and I think it's reasonable to challenge his wife about that (not as a politician, but as a human being).

But we do also live in a age where women are (rightly) responsible for their own affairs, so it seems to me a bit unreasonable and at one level somewhat patriarchic to start attacking Sunak and demanding that he be held account for what his wife is doing - unless you have some evidence that Sunak has played a part in those decisions. Although I appreciate it's a difficult area because it's very hard to separate out what benefits and influence a spouse might or might not have.

Regarding the ministerial code - ta for the information. This is curious. I checked and on the face of it, yes the Ministerial Code does state:

On appointment to each new office, Ministers must provide their Permanent Secretary with a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. The list should also cover interests of the Minister’s spouse or partner and close family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict.

So you would wonder about whether he should have declared his wife's shares. However it's very noticeable that, although quite a few newspapers are reporting the story of Sunak's wife's shares, none of them are - so far as I can tell - specifically accusing Sunak of breaking the ministerial code in this regard. Not even newspapers like the Mirror or the Guardian, both of which would normally be very quick to jump on any allegations they can make about Conservatives. The only place I can find on a quick Google that is making the allegation of breaking the ministerial code is Richard Murphy's so-called tax research blog, but since that blog seems to have quite a history of pushing misinformation, it's not a source I'd take seriously without some corroboration. So I wonder therefore whether he actually has definitely broken it. The obvious get-out is that it only requires you to declare stuff that might be thought to give rise to a conflict, and it is stretching things a bit to suggest that some shares held by a spouse in an *Indian* company with relatively little UK presence would have given much potential for conflict of interest - especially as Russia wasn't perceived as a problem in February 2020 when Sunak was appointed as Chancellor. So maybe that's why he didn't declare it? (I do though think it would've been better if he had).

It certainly doesn't look that good for either Sunak or his wife. I'd definitely be asking him questions about it. But I think you're drastically over-egging it, making it out to be some horrendous case of corruption and avoiding scrutiny.

 

[Typhoon]

It certainly doesn't look that good for either Sunak or his wife. I'd definitely be asking him questions about it. But I think you're drastically over-egging it, making it out to be some horrendous case of corruption and avoiding scrutiny.

Indian tech giant Infosys, in which UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak's wife owns shares thought to be worth more than £400m, is closing its office in Russia.

which is a result as far as I am concerned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60952063

 

[MattRat]

I think it's more nuanced than that. The point Sunak is making isn't that his wife is nothing to do with this, it's more that (to paraphrase) she's not a politician and therefore it's not reasonable to be attacking her as if she was. So I can't see that anything he's said justifies your implied assertion that he's trying to avoid scrutiny of himself.

To put a bit more information on it, the company concerned, Infosys, was so far as I can make out founded by her (Indian) father, Narayana Murthy. Akshata (Sunak's wife) appears to own about 1% of the shares - which is enough to receive dividends but probably not enough to have any significant influence in how the company is run. It's an Indian company and therefore not subject to UK sanctions, and has some presence in Russia (they claim, a small presence). Personally, if it was me, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable directly holding shares in a company that is active in Russia, and I'd be asking myself what action I should be taking, and I think it's reasonable to challenge his wife about that (not as a politician, but as a human being).

But we do also live in a age where women are (rightly) responsible for their own affairs, so it seems to me a bit unreasonable and at one level somewhat patriarchic to start attacking Sunak and demanding that he be held account for what his wife is doing - unless you have some evidence that Sunak has played a part in those decisions. Although I appreciate it's a difficult area because it's very hard to separate out what benefits and influence a spouse might or might not have.

Regarding the ministerial code - ta for the information. This is curious. I checked and on the face of it, yes the Ministerial Code does state:



So you would wonder about whether he should have declared his wife's shares. However it's very noticeable that, although quite a few newspapers are reporting the story of Sunak's wife's shares, none of them are - so far as I can tell - specifically accusing Sunak of breaking the ministerial code in this regard. Not even newspapers like the Mirror or the Guardian, both of which would normally be very quick to jump on any allegations they can make about Conservatives. The only place I can find on a quick Google that is making the allegation of breaking the ministerial code is Richard Murphy's so-called tax research blog, but since that blog seems to have quite a history of pushing misinformation, it's not a source I'd take seriously without some corroboration. So I wonder therefore whether he actually has definitely broken it. The obvious get-out is that it only requires you to declare stuff that might be thought to give rise to a conflict, and it is stretching things a bit to suggest that some shares held by a spouse in an *Indian* company with relatively little UK presence would have given much potential for conflict of interest - especially as Russia wasn't perceived as a problem in February 2020 when Sunak was appointed as Chancellor. So maybe that's why he didn't declare it? (I do though think it would've been better if he had).

It certainly doesn't look that good for either Sunak or his wife. I'd definitely be asking him questions about it. But I think you're drastically over-egging it, making it out to be some horrendous case of corruption and avoiding scrutiny.

I think this is a rather long winded way of saying he did the right thing but possibly in the wrong way.

Personally, I would have responded 'I don't tell women what to do'. Then people turn on the host for being a misogynist. Yes, it's underhand, but it works. If you are going to do something, at least do it well, IMO.

 

[brad465]

which is a result as far as I am concerned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60952063

This is now the most read article on the site, and certainly doesn't look like a good story for Sunak or his wife, while making more people aware of the business dealings in question that would never have surfaced had Russia not launched this latest invasion.

 

[Gloster]

It will also highlight just how well off he is and allow Labour to push the line that he is totally incapable of understanding how the recent and coming increases in the cost of living are hitting most people. Whether that is fair is another matter.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

which is a result as far as I am concerned.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60952063

That is indeed an excellent result: From the point of view of ramping up sanctions on Russia, it's as good as you could hope for!

I'm going to hazard a guess that the discussions about doing something like this this would probably have been ongoing within Infosys for some days (maybe even a week or two), so this might not be a sudden decision, but the publicity because of Rishi Sunak being Chancellor of the Exchequer must have helped. From experience, it takes a while for large organisations to move on these kinds of decisions.

 

[Typhoon]

That is indeed an excellent result: From the point of view of ramping up sanctions on Russia, it's as good as you could hope for!

I'm going to hazard a guess that the discussions about doing something like this this would probably have been ongoing within Infosys for some days (maybe even a week or two), so this might not be a sudden decision, but the publicity because of Rishi Sunak being Chancellor of the Exchequer must have helped. From experience, it takes a while for large organisations to move on these kinds of decisions.

It may well have been in the planning stage for some time, but it looks bad, it looks like they have reacted to criticism. This may or may not be true but I think I can safely guess how the newspapers will respond. Mrs Sunak could have done something earlier if she had wanted to avoid the situation; not an easy decision but that is why Sunak is in the position he is in, to make tough choices. They are not helped by a steady string of decisions that seem to have been forces on the government rather than them showing initiative.

 

[permarquis]

It will also highlight just how well off he is and allow Labour to push the line that he is totally incapable of understanding how the recent and coming increases in the cost of living are hitting most people. Whether that is fair is another matter.

I'd say it's a fair criticism. He keeps trying to sound empathetic by sayings things like "I know it's tough for people" which illustrates the different reality he lives in pretty well. That kind of language implies that although things will be hard, they're ultimately doable, which misunderstands the situation entirely for many families.

For many on low incomes it simply isn't doable, because they don't have any non-essential spending left to cut. Rishi Sunak would find it unacceptable if he were forced to forgo energy, for example, to afford food. He finds that perfectly acceptable for other people, and he wouldn't if he genuinely understood the devastating effect that kind of poverty has on people.

I think that disconnect is obvious to most voters, including many who vote Tory.

 

[SteveM70]

I'd say it's a fair criticism. He keeps trying to sound empathetic by sayings things like "I know it's tough for people" which illustrates the different reality he lives in pretty well. That kind of language implies that although things will be hard, they're ultimately doable, which misunderstands the situation entirely for many families.

For many on low incomes it simply isn't doable, because they don't have any non-essential spending left to cut. Rishi Sunak would find it unacceptable if he were forced to forgo energy, for example, to afford food. He finds that perfectly acceptable for other people, and he wouldn't if he genuinely understood the devastating effect that kind of poverty has on people.

I think that disconnect is obvious to most voters, including many who vote Tory.

Unfortunately there are a lot of hardened Tory voters who will trot out the usual ill informed “ah but they have iPhones / smoke 20 a day / massive telly and full Sky package” garbage

 

[The Ham]

Apparently Boris wasn't told the right information:

Boris Johnson given wrong information on lockdown parties, says Jacob Rees-Mogg

The minister says Boris Johnson had not deliberately attempted to mislead on whether lockdown rules were broken.

www.bbc.co.uk

Asked if the prime minister had misled Parliament, Mr Rees-Mogg told a caller on LBC: "The fact that the prime minister was given wrong information doesn't mean he misled people.
"The prime minister said he was told the rules were followed but that turns out not to be correct.
"If the prime minister is told information that is incorrect and passes that information on he has made no deliberate attempt to mislead anybody."
The minister for Brexit opportunities also defended describing the row as "fluff", arguing that it was "not the most important issue in the world" given the war in Ukraine and the cost of living crisis.
He also said the public inquiry into Covid should look into whether the lockdown rules were "proportionate" and suggested some rules were "inhumane".
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said: "If the PM wants to come to Parliament and tell us that he was repeatedly lied to by his own adviser then let him do that.
"The idea that he had no idea what was going on in his home and his office and only gave answers because he was lied to by his officials is a case he needs to make... I don't think he can."

 

[birchesgreen]

I'll remember that excuse next time i get a fine for something.

 

[alex397]

Before I was really into politics, I had a bit of respect for Jacob Rees Mogg. Never really agreed with him, but felt he stood by his principles and gave a good argument.

Now I just think I was fooled by his posh accent.

 

[Typhoon]

Before I was really into politics, I had a bit of respect for Jacob Rees Mogg. Never really agreed with him, but felt he stood by his principles and gave a good argument.

Now I just think I was fooled by his posh accent.

I reckon he made a mistake accepting Johnson's job offer. He was/ is tied in with government policy - some of the rules were 'inhumane'? Clearly not inhumane enough to leave a job which is little more than reading out the Commons business for the following week and sitting/lying on the front bench for hour after hour. So important is it that it is the job that Johnson gave Mark Spencer when he was found to be a completely ineffective Chief Whip.

Rees Mogg had standing as leader of the ERG, now he is Minister of State for Brexit Opportunities - that must be pretty much on a par with Minister for Administrative Affairs (but only in fiction is it a stepping stone to the top job).