• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
2,509
No, I would say it depends on how good your sense of priorities are: How well you are able to judge which is more important... someone lying about attending a party, or an invading army pillaging, mass raping women, killing civilians, and generally threatening peace in Europe. Personally I think the invading army is a more important issue to deal with. But it seems that quite a few posters here think that a couple of parties are more important... :(

Its a very convenient situation, I’ll give you that. I’m sure that the decision to ‘come clean’ and apologise has nothing whatsoever to do with his political capital gained from a few photo ops with Zelensky.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,253
Location
SE London
And what damage would be done by replacing a prime minister during that . It is not as if we are actively involved in combat in that war .

Sanctions and all the actual detail are drawn up by civil servants and will continue to be regardless of who prime minister is .

The detail will be drawn up by civil servants, but it will be based on policies and priorities that are set by the Government, and by the Prime Minister. If we suddenly lost the Prime Minister or ended up with a caretaker Prime Minister for a couple of months while the Conservative Party votes on a replacement, then it's inevitable that attention that would otherwise have been focused on helping Ukraine and on defence/security/working on sanctions will instead get diverted to the leadership contest, and on the uncertainty of not knowing what approach whoever takes over would want to take. Would you be comfortable with that happening in the current situation?
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
3,011
Location
London
No, I would say it depends on how good your sense of priorities is: How well you are able to judge which is more important... someone lying about attending a party, or an invading army pillaging, mass raping women, killing civilians, and generally threatening peace in Europe. Personally I think the invading army is a more important issue to deal with. But it seems that quite a few posters here think that a couple of parties are more important... :(

Just to clarify, should he resign once the Ukraine crisis is over?
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,905
No, I would say it depends on how good your sense of priorities is: How well you are able to judge which is more important... someone lying about attending a party, or an invading army pillaging, mass raping women, killing civilians, and generally threatening peace in Europe. Personally I think the invading army is a more important issue to deal with. But it seems that quite a few posters here think that a couple of parties are more important... :(


It’s not remotely an either/or decision. You’re presenting a false choice. We are not directly involved in the war, and Johnson has at best very limited involvement. The foreign secretary and defence secretary have been far more closely involved. The position of the UK wouldn’t change if Johnson resigned.
 

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
755
The detail will be drawn up by civil servants, but it will be based on policies and priorities that are set by the Government, and by the Prime Minister. If we suddenly lost the Prime Minister or ended up with a caretaker Prime Minister for a couple of months while the Conservative Party votes on a replacement, then it's inevitable that attention that would otherwise have been focused on helping Ukraine and on defence/security/working on sanctions will instead get diverted to the leadership contest, and on the uncertainty of not knowing what approach whoever takes over would want to take. Would you be comfortable with that happening in the current situation?
I wonder how France will cope eh?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
25,004
Location
Nottingham
Because the prime minister:
  • Broke the law.
  • Knew he broke the law because he was the one who made the rules that became law.
  • Lied to Parliament about breaking the law.
  • Lied to the general public about breaking the law.
It doesn't matter what the law was, that isn't the real issue. The issue is that he has continued to lie about it (and yes he has lied - time and time again, there is no "apparently" about it). Misleading Parliament (which is the polite way of saying lied to Parliament) is usually taken very seriously and usually means the minister resigns or is sacked. Why should Johnson get away with it? Other politicians / people involved in setting the rules who were later found to have broken them resigned (the Scottish chief medical officer is the one I can remember off the top of my head), so again why should the PM get away with it when others didn't?

Obviously he shouldn’t have broken his own laws. He is either a hypocrite, or an idiot who didn’t realise the severity of what he signed into law, and for either of those reasons should go.

However, I don’t think the gatherings were remotely immoral and do not buy into that side of the narrative at all. The law being wrong (such that those who wrote it couldn’t follow it) is the bigger concern to me.
What concerns me particularly is that the rules on parties were introduced because of the scientific advice that this was necessary to minimise the spread of infection and the risk of huge numbers of deaths. And yet the people who proposed those rules then went on to flout them.

This must mean either that they didn't believe the science, but were still prepared to restrict everyone else's freedom anyway for what they believed was no good reason. Or they did believe the science, but were prepared to endanger themselves and probably the very continuity of government in the middle of a crisis, if a party had turned out to be a superspreader event laying low many of the top people a few days later. You could argue that we'd be better without those top people, but I don't believe they were that humble.

So which is it?
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,103
Location
Taunton or Kent
The real reason that Johnson isn't going anywhere is because an alternative who is relatively credible and in particular likely to win an election is not clear. If such a candidate existed, Johnson would likely have gone in mid-December, during the height of Partygate leaks and just after the North Shropshire by-election loss. The Ukraine situation just happens to be a happy excuse to keep him on, but that's not the main reason for him staying.

What I can see happening, assuming Johnson rides this out, is him leaving office around 6-9 months before the next General Election, regardless of what's going on in Ukraine by that point, either through resignation with a gravy train ready to take him away, or through a scandal emerging that conveniently allows him to be deposed. This would allow the rest of the party to dump everything that's gone badly on Johnson, and the next leader would have a poll bounce to try and take into the next election.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,231
Location
Birmingham
The real reason that Johnson isn't going anywhere is because an alternative who is relatively credible and in particular likely to win an election is not clear. If such a candidate existed, Johnson would likely have gone in mid-December, during the height of Partygate leaks and just after the North Shropshire by-election loss. The Ukraine situation just happens to be a happy excuse to keep him on, but that's not the main reason for him staying.
Well its been a good week for Liz Truss.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,253
Location
SE London
Just to clarify, should he resign once the Ukraine crisis is over?

Depends a lot on the situation and on what happens between now and whenever the crisis is over. Personally I think he should've resigned in December/January, but frankly that's water under the bridge now. We have to deal with situation as it is today, not the situation as we'd like it to have been if events had turned out differently a few months ago.

If Boris continues to lead well and competently - which I'd say on the question of Ukraine, he has done rather better than most Western leaders, then by the time the crisis is over, there will be no point demanding that he resign because of something that by then will basically be ancient history. If on the other hand, between now and then he displays more incompetence, or more evidence comes to light of recent serious lies, then there'll be a strong case for expecting him to resign.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
If Boris continues to lead well and competently

Continues‽‽ That'd imply that he's done that before

more evidence comes to light of recent serious lies

I'm curious - what counts as serious, if not misleading the house of commons multiple times, and why does it have to be recent? Is it OK if he didn't get caught in the act?
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,453
So which is it?
As I said above, I don’t think it matters which. Both are problematic for different reasons.

If we’re speculating, I’m going for “idiocy” since:
  • We know he doesn’t have an eye for detail and couldn’t accurately describe the rules he’d enacted in multiple press briefings
  • The FPN relates to the 19th June 2020 gathering, which was casually described to the media on the 20th June (which nobody would do if they thought they’d broken the rules):
Boris Johnson celebrated his 56th birthday yesterday with a small gathering in the cabinet room. Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, and a group of aides sang him Happy Birthday before they tucked into a Union Jack cake.

The celebrations provided a brief respite after another gruelling week that featured two U-turns in 48 hours, Conservative backbenchers in open revolt and the government’s competence called into question again.

I certainly don’t want someone in charge who will sign into existence laws that they do not understand the implications of; especially when those laws inappropriately curtail basic freedoms. The fact this wasn’t widely challenged at the time indicates that the laws were fairly poorly understood in general.
 

muz379

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2014
Messages
2,227
The detail will be drawn up by civil servants, but it will be based on policies and priorities that are set by the Government, and by the Prime Minister. If we suddenly lost the Prime Minister or ended up with a caretaker Prime Minister for a couple of months while the Conservative Party votes on a replacement, then it's inevitable that attention that would otherwise have been focused on helping Ukraine and on defence/security/working on sanctions will instead get diverted to the leadership contest, and on the uncertainty of not knowing what approach whoever takes over would want to take. Would you be comfortable with that happening in the current situation?
I simply do not buy that , I am sorry but work to provide equipment to Ukraine would continue, work to enforce sanctions would continue , work to strengthen our position at the NATO border with Russia and Ukraine would continue.

Is the same diversion not occuring every time a scandal about Boris and his government breaks in the national news ?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,253
Location
SE London
Continues‽‽ That'd imply that he's done that before

I think what he's done on Ukraine is reasonably competent and has shown leadership. Up until then, there wasn't that much competence!

I'm curious - what counts as serious, if not misleading the house of commons multiple times, and why does it have to be recent? Is it OK if he didn't get caught in the act?

I think the problem with those kinds of questions is that they seem to be based on the assumption that there has to be some objective standard. And there isn't. This isn't a court of law where you're working out the sentence for a crime - that sentence has already happened via the announced fines. The question of whether a Prime Minister should resign is very subjective, and it's very dependant on things like, whether there's anyone else more competent, what the current situation is in terms of political events, and so on. Realistically, if a wrongdoing is discovered today, then that's much more of a resignation issue than if a wrongdoing has been public knowledge for the last year. That might not seem fair if you're trying to measure it objectively, but it's life and it's being pragmatic about governing the country. In this regard, it's very noticeable that most of the prominent people calling for Boris to resign seem to be the same people who have been basically looking for any reason to call for his head since the day he became prime minister (and likewise those most strongly defending him tend to be those who like his policies anyway). So I would suggest there are probably ulterior motives behind most calls for his resignation.

In the end, Partygate was a huge thing 3 months ago. It's now become old news, superceded by much more important events. And (barring certain obvious constitutional things like votes of no confidence) there isn't really any objective criteria for whether a Prime Minister should resign - that largely comes down to, how much confidence you have in that Prime Minister in whatever circumstances the country finds itself in.
 
Last edited:

68000

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2008
Messages
755
Wait for Sue Gray morphs into wait for the Met investigation morphs into wait for Russia to pull out of Ukraine
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,359
Location
Fenny Stratford
The real reason that Johnson isn't going anywhere is because......
........he is a coward without honour, integrity, decency or any form of moral compass.

Would you be comfortable with that happening in the current situation?
Yes

The covid rules were intended to help the general population not to stop small quiet parties held by sensible people surely ?
30 people for a relatively short gathering most of whom were in daily contact without masks is hardily significant.
The gatherings were illegal under the very rules Johnson enacted. That is what matters. You know, the rules we all followed.

No, I would say it depends on how good your sense of priorities is: How well you are able to judge which is more important... someone lying about attending a party, or an invading army pillaging, mass raping women, killing civilians, and generally threatening peace in Europe. Personally I think the invading army is a more important issue to deal with. But it seems that quite a few posters here think that a couple of parties are more important... :(

This matters to me. It should matter to you. We lost people in my family and it was awful. Really awful. Don't you dare tell me that I should judge what is more important. This is more important. Johnson should be gone.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,088
Location
UK
Plus I wonder how involved personally Boris is with Russia and if they might have a fair bit of dirt on he that he'd rather we not find out about, not someone we want making the decisions.

As I've said before elsewhere, there is nothing the Russians could expose about Boris that would make me think any less of him. Ditto with Trump.

Yes, I think Boris was compromised and has been a very useful idiot. I also think that he should probably do the right thing, but he won't and never was going to. Ukraine is a great excuse for now, and I am sure something else will come along.

I am not sure why Boris needs to remain at the helm to deal with the current problems, as it's not as if the Tories lose power (yet!) and someone else would step in. I strongly doubt Boris is any more active than Trump was in many tough decisions and is mostly doing what he's told by others anyway. He just enjoys being PM and making Churchill-esque speeches at conferences.
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
What worries me is where the bar is going to get left, I mean this is a job that requires utmost integrity - I know drinking with friends is in itself not akin to murder even though it broke the rules at the time, but what's more concerning is we gave now got a case study for 'the prime minister doesn't necessarily have to be the role model, can break the actual law at the given time - and gets to live to fight another day'

That's quite dangerous (IMO). The principle alone should be causing some serious concerns for everyone. A prime minister breaking the law, a law implemented in his tenure and remaining in place should be absolutely incomprehensible - I don't think they take themselves seriously because nobody reasonable could be that person

from the BBC news site "Mr Johnson said he felt "an even greater sense of obligation to deliver on the priorities of the British people" - I mean this just makes me think of a criminal following a victim home to make sure they get home safe after stealing their wallet. Panic not my people, despite all the harm I have already done, I feel my way of reperation all I can do is to insist on being by your side to the bitter end.

I think he could have handled Ukraine a lot worse, but in real terms this means nothing as it doesn't change the above, we are an international laughing stock - not only was a PM able to think they could break their own laws but they did and look to be getting away with it. Makes us all look good
 
Last edited:

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,132
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
Those who say that this is a minor fuss about a couple of parties and insignificant compared with the Ukraine crisis are completely missing the point. The most important thing in a crisis is to have a leader that you can trust. Partygate has demonstrated unequivocally that Johnson has no conception of truth and is not to be trusted. Therefore he should go. End of story.
 

david1212

Established Member
Joined
9 Apr 2020
Messages
1,483
Location
Midlands
Johnson is a pathological liar and I would not trust him to protect UK interests in any crisis. His whole team are liars and need to go

Johnson should have known that he was doing something that broke the rules that he was responsible for setting. If he didn't know that, then that is a reason for him to go.

If it was just his inaccurate moral compass, then he might have got away with an apology.

However, he doubled, tripled and quadrupled down on the lies. That is why he has to go. He is not fit to hold office.

What a wonderful precedent has been set if he doesn't lose his job over this, i wonder what crimes future PMs will be allowed to get away with.

How many times did he said that he did nothing wrong and/or he did not know what was going on? 19th June 2020 was just one of numerous events. 16 April 2021, the day before the Duke of Edinburgh's funeral was another and extremely disrespectful knowing the Queen had been offered dispensation for more to attend but declined.

Boris Johnson ought to resign, but he is a man with no shame, no obvious successor and no credible opposition, so he will continue to cling-on as he has through catastrophe after catastrophe. His endurance is remarkable, but equally disappointing.

I yearn for a leader with actual policies.

This has been the UK problem for some time.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,359
Those who say that this is a minor fuss about a couple of parties and insignificant compared with the Ukraine crisis are completely missing the point. The most important thing in a crisis is to have a leader that you can trust. Partygate has demonstrated unequivocally that Johnson has no conception of truth and is not to be trusted. Therefore he should go. End of story.

Indeed.

Also it should be noted that many don't think that the Tories are doing very well at handling the issue of visas for Ukrainians. As such even directly related to the war in Ukraine Boris isn't doing all that well.

Yes we're providing lethal aid, you don't need to be all that much of a leader for that policy to continue.

The big question, which is likely to come to light soon, is what measures have been taken to ensure that the ongoing consequences of the war don't harm the country (ideally the world) too much. Especially given the amount of food which Ukraine produces or the resources which are now likely to be limited given restrictions (or at least the desire not to buy from them) on Russia.

Whilst we shouldn't be putting out "dig for victory" posters there should be things in place to start the process of generating more food to help mitigate the losses.

Even subtle things like launching communities gardens so that local people can produce food to aid those who are suffering with the cost of living crisis. That would mean that they could claim to be helping those who are needing to choose between heating and eating, whilst at the same time increasing the amount of food produced in this country, whilst not panicking people about the fact that food is likely to be the next thing which goes up in cost.

Boris is very much reactive and not proactive, we certainly need someone who is good at the latter. As such that should be, without any other factor (although they only add to the reasons), enough of a reason for Boris to step down because of the war in Ukraine.

I'll give you an example, when Covid started most people chose to restrict their movements before any government policy came into effect. Likewise look at how behind the curve the policy on Ukrainian refugees has been.

Unless anyone can prove me wrong about Boris being more proactive rather than reactive, then I believe the calls for him to go now aren't the wrong thing to do.

It's also entirely possible for him to stand down as leader of the Tory Party but stay as PM until a new one is picked.

Yes there'll be distractions, however the figurehead and the civil servants will still be in place. Much in the same way that France is able to have an election.
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,506
Johnson & Sunik need to go.

I was one of millions of Brits denied the chance of saying goodbye to a loved one during the first Covid lockdown in March-June 2020. The relative who passed away only had his wife & daughters in attendance at his funeral service.

The fact these 'leaders' of our Country have lied and manipulated us - 'do as I say, but not as I do' speaks volumes. All of us on this forum have been affected by Covid - whether through bereavement or struggling with out mental health during the lockdown. It's almost like these idiots at Westminster have been laughing at us.

Sadly, I don't think Johnson will go easily - he is using the Ukraine crisis as a smoke screen. Maggie Thatcher went from Downing Street on the eve of the Gulf War, so it wouldn't make a difference if Johnson went now.

Unless the Tories instigate a vote of no confidence to oust Johnson from power, I have a feeling we will be lumbered with him for the foreseeable future.

However, the vote of no confidence would have to be balloted by those Tory MP's who had no involvement with any of the shenanigans in Parliament.

CJ
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,359
An alternative suggestion for someone to be in charge whilst the choice of new leader is sorted; Theresa May.

Wouldn't take a lot for her to get up to speed as PM.

Would be more on the details than Boris, would certainly be more compassionate than him.

Understands the Home Secretary's job so could ensure that is done well. As well as having being either a cabinet member or Shadow cabinet member across quite a range of departments.

Main downfall was due to Brexit, well that's done now.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
An alternative suggestion for someone to be in charge whilst the choice of new leader is sorted; Theresa May.

Wouldn't take a lot for her to get up to speed as PM.

Would be more on the details than Boris, would certainly be more compassionate than him.

Understands the Home Secretary's job so could ensure that is done well. As well as having being either a cabinet member or Shadow cabinet member across quite a range of departments.

Main downfall was due to Brexit, well that's done now.
That will never happen.

Do remember that we have a Deputy Prime Minister, who could step in and cover if necessary. So long as there's a big map in Downing Street so someone can show Dominic Raab where Russia is...
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,296
Location
St Albans
That will never happen.

Do remember that we have a Deputy Prime Minister, who could step in and cover if necessary. So long as there's a big map in Downing Street so someone can show Dominic Raab where Russia is...
... and it doesn't mean he has to cut short his beach holiday.
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
An alternative suggestion for someone to be in charge whilst the choice of new leader is sorted; Theresa May.

Wouldn't take a lot for her to get up to speed as PM.

Would be more on the details than Boris, would certainly be more compassionate than him.

Understands the Home Secretary's job so could ensure that is done well. As well as having being either a cabinet member or Shadow cabinet member across quite a range of departments.

Main downfall was due to Brexit, well that's done now.
Good comment. Theresa May was handed a poison chalice when she took office, she never stood a chance with Brexit hanging over her every move. She may not have universal popularity, but right now any faults she has are not looking too serious in comparison with those of everyone who was prepared to break the very laws they made. Boris and many others have blatantly waved two fingers at the law, I'd like to think May at least has more integrity than that, and who knows, she may have done a better job over Ukraine too ...
 

C J Snarzell

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2019
Messages
1,506
Good comment. Theresa May was handed a poison chalice when she took office, she never stood a chance with Brexit hanging over her every move. She may not have universal popularity, but right now any faults she has are not looking too serious in comparison with those of everyone who was prepared to break the very laws they made. Boris and many others have blatantly waved two fingers at the law, I'd like to think May at least has more integrity than that, and who knows, she may have done a better job over Ukraine too ...

I seem to recall Theresa May struggled with poor health towards the end of her premiership - I think she was type one diabetic if I recall. Very unlikely at 65, she would want another spell at leading parliament again. Then again Joe Biden is nearly 80!!!!

CJ
 

Shrop

On Moderation
Joined
6 Aug 2019
Messages
649
I seem to recall Theresa May struggled with poor health towards the end of her premiership - I think she was type one diabetic if I recall. Very unlikely at 65, she would want another spell at leading parliament again. Then again Joe Biden is nearly 80!!!!

CJ
Are you just thinking of the temporary setback of learning to live with diabetes? But I do agree that presiding over the existing bunch of law breakers and apologists for them would be far from ideal. Another poison chalice probably
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,560
Location
UK
To be able to cap energy prices, that would mean a subsidy. I'm not sure, in the context of needing to reduce usage for many reasons, that this is a sensible plan, other than short-term. It would be better to subsidise improvements in home energy efficiency e.g. insulation, and to mandate housebuilders and landlords to improve it too.
Why do I feel like Rishi won't be the one choosing between heating or eating?

I'd support a short term benefits based approach, but not a cap. Those of us who can afford to pay more should. And it's nudging me towards improving my insulation further.
Lucky you, with savings to invest in insulation, and your own house that you can choose to insulate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top