UK Politics Thread

[Pannonian]

Michael Gove sacked for telling Johnson to step down.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes. British politicians are just slightly less craven than ones in the USA.

There are three ways Boris could be gone in our system as it stands in decreasing likelihood:

1. The 1922 committee change the rules and a new vote is taken. They're postponing due them having an election. So they might start the process in c. 2 weeks.
2. Boris just resigns - possibly when he starts to run out of bodies to do the jobs.
3. The Queen does something given the majority of the Commons, the Lords, the Provinces, the Public all want him gone.

Perhaps, just perhaps the next incumbent will get us away from Rule by Good Chaps.

[Montmorency]

The reason comparisons of Johnson to Trump were overblown is that there was always a very strong analogy of Johnson to George W. Bush.

[Pannonian]

Yes. British politicians are just slightly less craven than ones in the USA.

There are three ways Boris could be gone in our system as it stands in decreasing likelihood:

1. The 1922 committee change the rules and a new vote is taken. They're postponing due them having an election. So they might start the process in c. 2 weeks.
2. Boris just resigns - possibly when he starts to run out of bodies to do the jobs.
3. The Queen does something given the majority of the Commons, the Lords, the Provinces, the Public all want him gone.

Perhaps, just perhaps the next incumbent will get us away from Rule by Good Chaps.

He's already reached that stage. Commons committees have been cancelled because the relevant individuals aren't in government to answer questions. Backbenchers have refused to take on roles, leaving extant vacancies.

[Pannonian]

The reason comparisons of Johnson to Trump were overblown is that there was always a very strong analogy of Johnson to George W. Bush.

The comparison with Trump was over his pathological untruthfulness and the willingness of his base to ignore reality and swallow everything he said. Also his willingness to ignore all custom and only follow rules that he was legally pinned down on.

[Montmorency]

pathological untruthfulness and the willingness of his base to ignore reality and swallow everything he said. Also his willingness to ignore all custom and only follow rules that he was legally pinned down on.

That was Bush, if you'll recall.

Both took public lying to new heights, but with a knowing chuckle. Both trolled the media and were known for malapropisms and public personas projecting a sort of 'folksy charm' beloved of base conservatives. Both were blue blood elites. Both made unlikely ascendancies to national prominence over more traditional party rivals. Both were infamous for stacking the government with corrupt, incompetent, and sinister characters, some of whom often had more of a role in managing the ship of state than the leader himself. Both ultimately became beleaguered by widespread public and copartisan disfavor amid scandals, policy foibles, and economic [let's say dislocation].

Just to name a few parallels.

We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

[Pannonian]

53 resignations and 1 sacking since this broke out. 6 resignations so far this morning. Some departments, such as Education, are virtually unmanned. Chief lawyer called on Johnson to go (having previously expressed a wish to run for leadership), while her no.2 resigned yesterday. The Times notes that the newly installed chancellor has been planning to oust Johnson for months. Both Northern Ireland and Wales ministers have gone.

[rory_20_uk]

He's already reached that stage. Commons committees have been cancelled because the relevant individuals aren't in government to answer questions. Backbenchers have refused to take on roles, leaving extant vacancies.

Ministers only have to be from the Commons or the Lords by convention. He can choose anyone he wants.

Until he's forced out by balifs, the police or the army he'll stay. As why not?

[Pannonian]

Johnson finally agrees to resign, but will be in place until he's passed Theresa May (he drew level with Neville Chamberlain today).

[rory_20_uk]

Let's hope this is draining the abscess not excising a cancer.

He really is in the running for worst PM ever. Labour have a lot to answer for having Corbyn as Leader. Boris would still most likely have won but by a lot less.

[Crandar]

What really condemned Corbyn was his ambiguous position towards Brexit. Hadn't he chickened out and instead adopted a transparent position, he would have performed much better, in my opinion.

Anyway, who do you think is going to succeed Boris in the leadership of the Tories? Michael Gove seems like the strongest candidate to me. Could also be Sunak; Javid, although internationally more famous, is less likely.

In the meantime, Baker (Tory version of Republican extremism) has also expressed his interest. His case is hopeless, thankfully.

[rory_20_uk]

What really condemned Corbyn was his ambiguous position towards Brexit. Hadn't he chickened out and instead adopted a transparent position, he would have performed much better, in my opinion.

Anyway, who do you think is going to succeed Boris in the leadership of the Tories? Michael Gove seems like the strongest candidate to me. Could also be Sunak; Javid, although internationally more famous, is less likely.

In the meantime, Baker (Tory version of Republican extremism) has also expressed his interest. His case is hopeless, thankfully.

Corbyn was a sub-normal IQ dumpster fire. He was too stupid to realise his ideals of nationalising everything he could lay his hands on would cause vast damage to the economy - equality for those too poor to flee the country for anywhere else.

On who is next I think that there's three classes:

• Optimists
• Chancers
• Strategists

The first think they can win, solve the problems that are endemic and get the populace to vote for them again in the next elections and either win or not screw up so much that they loose the position.
The second just want to be PM for a bit - one's name in the history books, the links it gives, meet the monarchy and a lifetime stipend.
The third will wait the disaster to end, possibly after the next election and then swoop in.

[Montmorency]

Shortish podcast with an American and an American expat going in depth on the British political system and the process and history of what's going on in Westminster. Seems pretty legit.

On the subject of the next Conservative leader, the point is made that the Conservatives have been in power for so long that all of the old frontbenchers are widely unpopular among the party and the public for their various views on, mostly, cutting taxes, raising taxes, and cutting spending. John Heseltine (still living) did not follow Margaret Thacther; John Major did.

[Pannonian]

Shortish podcast with an American and an American expat going in depth on the British political system and the process and history of what's going on in Westminster. Seems pretty legit.

On the subject of the next Conservative leader, the point is made that the Conservatives have been in power for so long that all of the old frontbenchers are widely unpopular among the party and the public for their various views on, mostly, cutting taxes, raising taxes, and cutting spending. John Heseltine (still living) did not follow Margaret Thacther; John Major did.

Michael Heseltine was from that section of the Tory party called the One Nation Conservatives, a line that goes back to Benjamin Disraeli (author of A Tale of Two Nations). Their aim is t preserve institutions whilst looking after the ordinary people. To a man jack of them, they opposed Brexit, as something that would benefit the very few whilst making things worse for the massive majority of poorer people. The last of the One Nation Big Beasts, Ken Clarke, noted after yet another tax cut for the rich, that he was well off enough and didn't need more tax cuts. But the cult of Brexit, and Boris Johnson the Brexit Enabler, has driven out all the moderate Tories, with those remaining picked for their adherence to Brexit and personal loyalty to Johnson. All the old Tories who'd believed in effective government have been driven out.

At the same time as tax rates for the richest were cut yet again, the tax rates for the poorest were raised to the highest level for quite a few decades. This after Labour were voted out for allowing National Debt to rise to an unsustained near-trillion GBP (it's currently 2.3 trillion), local government collapsing because of lack of funds despite tax money going extravagantly up, and billions of tax payers money being paid to friends and families of Tory politicians. Those who are in a position to benefit, mainly Tory politicians and their friends, have benefited from Brexit and other Tory policies. Everyone else has suffered. The old One Nation Tories, believing in the reverse of this, absolutely despise the current Tories and Brexit.

[Pannonian]

Why is Johnson being allowed to throw a wedding party at Chequers? If he's resigned, but is only there to provide continuity while the Tories decide on a replacement, why is he allowed to use the amenities for personal use?

[rory_20_uk]

Why is Johnson being allowed to throw a wedding party at Chequers? If he's resigned, but is only there to provide continuity while the Tories decide on a replacement, why is he allowed to use the amenities for personal use?

I hope that this is a rhetorical question since the answer is always the same.

The Good Chap System has nothing to deal with such people. His current wife wants a big do so, why not? Chequers isn't owned by the state and the Trust makes it available for the PM. He is the PM so he gets to play.

If we get an interim PM the first - perhaps only - legislation they should pass is to codify much of what has up until been merely optional.

[Pannonian]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's iffy that a lame duck PM who's admitted to meeting with enemy agents without the presence of other officials is left in place, even after he's announced that he plans to continue to take advantage of a PM's facilities and privileges?

[Furunculus]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's iffy that a lame duck PM who's admitted to meeting with enemy agents without the presence of other officials is left in place, even after he's announced that he plans to continue to take advantage of a PM's facilities and privileges?

No. Because context.

The subtext of your question about iffy'ness is that he is acting as an agent of a foreign power.
A foreign power that we are engaged in a proxy war with, and have been leading the global coordination of sanctions against the same foreign power.

And the context here is as I have asked before - to complete silence: what is the pay-off that this foreign power is getting?

It may be inappropriate, and that may justify 'iffy', but i see little merit in the insinuation that he is traitorous russian dupe.

[Pannonian]

No. Because context.

The subtext of your question about iffy'ness is that he is acting as an agent of a foreign power.
A foreign power that we are engaged in a proxy war with, and have been leading the global coordination of sanctions against the same foreign power.

And the context here is as I have asked before - to complete silence: what is the pay-off that this foreign power is getting?

It may be inappropriate, and that may justify 'iffy', but i see little merit in the insinuation that he is traitorous russian dupe.

So a PM needs to have a firm definition of cause, concrete evidence and foolproof argument, in order to not be considered iffy? The security services already noted that his acquaintances were people that could not be trusted, that he furthermore could not be trusted with secrets. His admitted actions are strictly against security protocols. The Commons committee found that no evidence was to be found against him because officials had been told to look the other way.

The likes of Corbyn had weaker arguments against his loyalty to this country, and he wasn't fit for office either. But I guess facilitating Brexit cleans a lot of sins.

[Pannonian]

Oh, and the investigations of the Labour leader and deputy leader, instigated by a Tory MP and Tory press, have concluded with the Durham police noting that there was nothing to answer for (said leader and deputy leader promised to resign their positions if they were fined). A former head of Durham police calls it a politically motivated attempt at smearing, and a waste of police time.

[Furunculus]

So a PM needs to have a firm definition of cause, concrete evidence and foolproof argument, in order to not be considered iffy? The security services already noted that his acquaintances were people that could not be trusted, that he furthermore could not be trusted with secrets. His admitted actions are strictly against security protocols. The Commons committee found that no evidence was to be found against him because officials had been told to look the other way.

The likes of Corbyn had weaker arguments against his loyalty to this country, and he wasn't fit for office either. But I guess facilitating Brexit cleans a lot of sins.

The problem i point here is not that Boris's actions were not inappropriate.
No, it derives your continued insinuation that he is an agent of a foreign power.
And your disinterest in questioning what it is that russia is buying for its 'money'.
You have no interest, so i'm led to conclude that your principle interest is in blackening a reputation rather than exposing a misdemeanour.

[Pannonian]

The problem i point here is not that Boris's actions were not inappropriate.
No, it derives your continued insinuation that he is an agent of a foreign power.
And your disinterest in questioning what it is that russia is buying for its 'money'.
You have no interest, so i'm led to conclude that your principle interest is in blackening a reputation rather than exposing a misdemeanour.

As foreign secretary, meeting someone the security services deem to be dodgy, without the presence of other officials, is not inappropriate? What was discussed at that meeting? What activities did Johnson get up to that might make him vulnerable? Whatever he got up, even before this the security services recommended to the then PM Theresa May that Johnson was best not entrusted with any secrets, as his record made him untrustworthy. And the Commons committee noted that Johnson and his associates had been systematically turning the gaze of the police and other similar bodies so as not to keep a record of what they've been doing.

There are no misdemeanours to be revealed, because Johnson has been making damned sure there are no witnesses. All evidence is circumstantial and lack of records where official procedure was to keep records, precisely to avoid cases like this. And with his modus operandi, you're asking for evidence that he's been careful to keep clear of.

I'm reminded of the Yes Minister episode Party Games, where the chancellor and foreign secretary were ruled out of contention for marginal activities that might make them vulnerable to blackmail. All based on good practice as learned from centuries of espionage. Johnson has a much more extensive record of these things, and yet is excused them. Brexit really does wash away all sins.

[rory_20_uk]

What on earth could Russia have on Boris that would act as leverage - and are they so inept to keep the same dirt a secret up to the point of him resigning?

Boris is a cancer in the world and has always been. But colluding with Russia? If he has been, he's taken Russia for a ride - receiving free cash for sod all.

[Pannonian]

What on earth could Russia have on Boris that would act as leverage - and are they so inept to keep the same dirt a secret up to the point of him resigning?

Boris is a cancer in the world and has always been. But colluding with Russia? If he has been, he's taken Russia for a ride - receiving free cash for sod all.

Goodness knows, and that's the whole point. We don't know what Johnson has been up to, and he in his official positions should have had a record of what he's been doing. He arranged for a meeting between Eygeniy Lebedev and the head of MI6. Said head refused to attend the meeting, as Evgeniy was the son of a former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev, and an informal meeting with someone thusly connected would compromise the head of MI6, and thus the MI6 itself. As it happens, this wasn't enough (along with the peerage Johnson secured for Evgeniy, against the advice of civil servants). Johnson, as foreign secretary, met Alexander himself, at a private do in Italy, without other officials present. The MI6 deemed Evgeniy to be a risk because of his links with Alexander the ex-KGB agent. Even before he took up cabinet office, the security services advised PM May that Johnson was a security risk. And as foreign secretary, Johnson met with Alexander himself in circumstances way beyond those that the head of MI6 deemed to be compromising.

That Yes Minister episode shows what was considered normal back then, and what kind of behaviour was deemed to be potentially compromising and would rule one out for higher office. Johnson went way beyond that. There will likely be no concrete evidence, for he's taken care to ensure that no evidence is left. But a minister in his position should have had records kept, precisely to avoid compromising situations, so the government can properly assess the situation. Corbyn did less and was demonised for hating the country.

[rory_20_uk]

He's a liar. A baraggart. A probable narcisist. Previous colleagues have said this repeatedly. MI6 and MI5 also know.

As long as the meeting was not in the Russian Embassy any Russians attending would at the very least be concerned it was bieng monitored in some way or other. Even if monitoring him by name might be politically they can quickly target those who might contact him. Because the Secret Service isn't going to trust someone who would have been flagged as a security risk from personality alone in his early 20s by someone with an A level in Psychology.

Hes not singlehandedly the Cambridge Spy ring.

Of the litany of things he's done this really doesn't matter.

[Pannonian]

He's a liar. A baraggart. A probable narcisist. Previous colleagues have said this repeatedly. MI6 and MI5 also know.

As long as the meeting was not in the Russian Embassy any Russians attending would at the very least be concerned it was bieng monitored in some way or other. Even if monitoring him by name might be politically they can quickly target those who might contact him. Because the Secret Service isn't going to trust someone who would have been flagged as a security risk from personality alone in his early 20s by someone with an A level in Psychology.

Hes not singlehandedly the Cambridge Spy ring.

Of the litany of things he's done this really doesn't matter.

He should be questioned, under oath, on his links with these individuals and what he's been doing in various cases. We already know that there's no evidence of wrongdoing because the bodies that should have been monitoring him have been told to look the other way so they didn't see anything. What has this been hiding?

[rory_20_uk]

He should be questioned, under oath, on his links with these individuals and what he's been doing in various cases. We already know that there's no evidence of wrongdoing because the bodies that should have been monitoring him have been told to look the other way so they didn't see anything. What has this been hiding?

Why bother? To prove to a criminal level would be impossible. If he had done something the Secret Services would almost certain not want to give up information.

Get rid of him, pass some proper laws so this doesn't reoccur and just move on. There's finite time and money so this is a waste.

[Furunculus]

Goodness knows, and that's the whole point. We don't know what Johnson has been up to, and he in his official positions should have had a record of what he's been doing...

But what have Russia got for their money?

I know what Russia has got from Germany - twenty years of ost-politik that has seen:
1. Complete dependence on Russian energy
2. A 20b euro subsidy of his war in Ukraine
3. Control over Germany's strategic reserves of Gas which Gazprom ran down in the months before Ukraine invasion
4. German lobbying for Nordstream pipelines that everyone said would be used by Russia to shaft eastern europe
5. Interference in German energy politics to discredit nuclear - complete speculation here, but you're familiar with the method
6. And i could go on here...

But when it comes to what Russia 'bought' from Boris...

I struggle to see the pay-off Russia got for asking Yevgeny to slide manilla envelopes to Boris:
1. Biggest promoter of the Russian sanctions regime in europe
2. Ten years of Op Orbital training soldiers in Ukraine
3. A foriegn policy that directs Defence to treat Russia as the UK's primary military opponent
4. One of the largest material supporters of Ukranian military resistance against Russia
5. One of the largest political supporters of Ukranian military resistance against Russia
6. Now training 10k ukranian soldiers in the UK every four months

Dragging this up repeatedly amounts to mud-slinging rather than an important revelation.

[Pannonian]

Why bother? To prove to a criminal level would be impossible. If he had done something the Secret Services would almost certain not want to give up information.

Get rid of him, pass some proper laws so this doesn't reoccur and just move on. There's finite time and money so this is a waste.

Find out what he's been doing. Make it prosecutable if he lies so he has incentive to tell the truth for once in his life. I'd rather not trust that he's not been up to no good, given that all that he's done is exactly what one would do if one were up to no good and wanted to cover one's tracks.

[Pannonian]

But what have Russia got for their money?

I know what Russia has got from Germany - twenty years of ost-politik that has seen:
1. Complete dependence on Russian energy
2. A 20b euro subsidy of his war in Ukraine
3. Control over Germany's strategic reserves of Gas which Gazprom ran down in the months before Ukraine invasion
4. German lobbying for Nordstream pipelines that everyone said would be used by Russia to shaft eastern europe
5. Interference in German energy politics to discredit nuclear - complete speculation here, but you're familiar with the method
6. And i could go on here...

But when it comes to what Russia 'bought' from Boris...

I struggle to see the pay-off Russia got for asking Yevgeny to slide manilla envelopes to Boris:
1. Biggest promoter of the Russian sanctions regime in europe
2. Ten years of Op Orbital training soldiers in Ukraine
3. A foriegn policy that directs Defence to treat Russia as the UK's primary military opponent
4. One of the largest material supporters of Ukranian military resistance against Russia
5. One of the largest political supporters of Ukranian military resistance against Russia
6. Now training 10k ukranian soldiers in the UK every four months

Dragging this up repeatedly amounts to mud-slinging rather than an important revelation.

Don't you think it's a good thing for our government to know what our ministers have been up to? If official procedure is that ministers should not meet with risky individuals without the presence of others, don't you reckon that there might be a reason for that?