Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Oh no, Johnson would have received a 90-days holiday from Parliament for all the misleading going on! Draconian strictness and consequences!!!!

He was fined by the police, removed as PM, couldn't run again as leader because his political support is now so weak, he has now resigned as an MP rather than face censure or a by-election and will be banned from the parliamentary estate (unless he becomes an MP again). In public approval ratings he now sits between Xi Jinping and Prince Andrew. What other consequences do you want?

Really striking that the report was going to recommend a suspension long enough to trigger a by-election (20 days is still well above the 10 day threshold) for the initial contempt, but a lot seems to have been attached to the further contempts - and they're now launching a report into further "impugning" and "abuse" of the committee, largely by Johnson dead ender Tory MPs.

Guardian article on it:

Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over Partygate, MPs find
Cross-party committee says ex-PM would have faced 90-day suspension had he not quit in rage at findings last week
Aubrey Allegretti Senior political correspondent
@breeallegretti
Thu 15 Jun 2023 09.38 BST

Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over Partygate and was part of a campaign to abuse and intimidate MPs investigating him, a long-awaited report by the privileges committee has found.

In an unprecedented move, the cross-party group said he "closed his mind to the truth" and would have faced a 90-day suspension from the Commons had he not quit in rage at its conclusions last week.

Johnson was also found to have knowingly misled the committee itself, breached Commons rules by partially leaking its findings last Friday, and undermined the democratic processes of parliament.

As a result, it was recommended Johnson be banned from getting the pass granted to ex-MPs that allows them privileged access to the Westminster estate.

Johnson was originally set to face a suspension from parliament of 20 days – enough to trigger a recall petition that would have probably led to a byelection. But the committee said his blistering attempts to intimidate it last Friday would have increased the punishment to 90 days.

Two MPs on the committee – one Labour and the other from the SNP – had pushed for Johnson to be expelled from parliament. But the final report and punishment was signed off unanimously by all seven members.

"He deliberately misled the house ... on an issue of the greatest importance to the house and to the public, and did so repeatedly," the report said. It said his attempt to brand the committee a kangaroo court "amounts to an attack on our democratic institutions".

Johnson's argument that he believed all the parties in Downing Street were legal was filleted by the committee. "That belief ... has no reasonable basis in the rules or on the facts," it said. "A reasonable person looking at the events and the rules would not have the belief that Johnson has professed."

The findings came in an excoriating 106-page report published on Thursday, which also confirmed that the government last month handed over evidence of a further 16 gatherings at No 10 and Chequers that were "potentially problematic".

Johnson insisted all those events were within the rules, and necessary to provide support to his pregnant wife, Carrie. The committee said if it emerged his assurances were untrue, "he may have committed a further contempt" of parliament.

Across the televised hearing and in written evidence, Johnson was accused of seeking to "re-write the meaning of the rules and guidance to fit his own evidence". The committee criticised "the frequency with which he closed his mind" to the facts and "what was obvious", leading it to concludethat the former prime minister "was deliberately closing his mind".

So forensic was the committee's inquiry, that its MPs went into No 10 to measure a room where Johnson was pictured holding a drink with others stood around him not socially distanced.

It said his claim that it had been necessary to boost staff morale by attending the event after the departure of two senior No 10 aides, did not provide licence for his "conveniently flexible interpretation of the rules on gatherings".

As a result of the angry response from Johnson and his allies, it was reported that the MPs on the committee had been offered increased security. The committee said Johnson had attacked "in very strong, indeed vitriolic, terms the integrity, honesty and honour of its members".

Johnson accused the committee, which has a Tory majority and a Labour chair, of trying to "bring about what is intended to be the final knife-thrust in a protracted political assassination". He said their findings were "preposterous" and a sign of "desperation".

"This report is a charade," Johnson said in a statement. "I was wrong to believe in the committee or its good faith. The terrible truth is that it is not I who has twisted the truth to suit my purposes. It is [the chair] Harriet Harman and her committee."

Rishi Sunak dodged questions about the report, in a short interview on Thursday morning in the hours before its publication. He denied he was "frustrated" by Johnson's interventions over the past week, but refused to say whether the former prime minister should be allowed to stand again as a Tory MP.

Sunak added: "These are matters for the House of Commons, and parliament will deal with it in the way that it does."

The moment is potentially one of major jeopardy for Sunak, given the fragile peace he sought to build in the Conservative party has fractured in recent days.

The row about the report has already resulted in Johnson sparking a difficult byelection next month by standing down and mounting furious attacks against one of the Tory committee members.

Tory MPs will have to decide how to vote on the report's findings. Many are likely to endorse the result of the more than year-long inquiry, but there could be a damaging split on the government benches if Johnson's allies refuse to do so.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Good, a disgraceful piece of shit will go down in history as a disgraceful piece of shit 

[Hamilcar]

Does he still have his US passport? He can run for the Republican nomination!

[Sheilbh]

Johnson believes his "legacy" and what he talks up are his policy on Ukraine, vaccines and net zero. He's probably right on that - those are the highlights/mitigations you'd argue from his premiership.

I think while Republicans might love his losing his job for breaking covid rules, I'm not sure they'd be on board with the rest

Although I think he renounced his American citizenship because of their extra-territorial taxes (which are crazy).

[Valmy]

Although I think he renounced his American citizenship because of their extra-territorial taxes (which are crazy).

Freedom ain't free!

[Josquius]

I've seen an image. No idea if it was true or doctored. Of Johnson on talk TV (really shifty shit there with how they've hijacked local tv streams) claiming brexit saved lives during covid. 

[Tamas]

Why I cannot vote LibDem: people who made a terrific deal with near-zero rate and flushed the property market with money, making it more expensive for less reckless people: hey, let's make sure they suffer no negative consequences, let's bail them out!

Liberal Democrats: emergency mortgage protection fund needed
Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, is calling for a £3bn emergency mortgage protection fund to protect people who would otherwise be repossessed.

Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Davey says the government should provide the kind of help that was available after the last financial crisis.

Davey explains:

We've already seen the number of people's homes been reposessed going up massively – surging by 50% in the latest quarter, and my worry is that we're going to see lots of other families losing their homes, and we could be in a spiral of repossessions.

The banks have got to play a bigger role. They need to step in and help people who are in trouble.

But just as there was before, there needs to be more protection for those who are really suffering and the government just aren't doing that.

Q: But this would be regressive – people who don't own homes shouldn't support those who do? It would heat up demand, when the Bank of England is trying to cool it, and aren't there better uses of public money? Plus, lax monetary policy has helped people who own assets...

Davey says the Lib Dems' proposal is "quite targeted and time-limited" and it will get help to people who would otherwise lose their homes.

If we don't give that sort of help to those people, you'd see a spiral down and it will hit the whole economy.

He adds that there also needs to be more support for carers, and for renters "who are getting a really poor deal".

Davey argues that MPs should spend next Monday debating the cost of living crisis, not all day debating Boris Johnson following yesterday's privileges committee report.

[Josquius]

I dunno. Stopping kids from losing their home sounds like a good thing to me.
Needs to be done in such a way of course where it doesn't reward recklessness. Their parents are still going to pay for it at some point.
But plenty of perfectly valid reasons why someone could have fallen behind on mortgage payments having done nothing wrong.

[Tamas]

I dunno. Stopping kids from losing their home sounds like a good thing to me.
Needs to be done in such a way of course where it doesn't reward recklessness. Their parents are still going to pay for it at some point.
But plenty of perfectly valid reasons why someone could have fallen behind on mortgage payments having done nothing wrong.

But why be financially prudent then? In the last couple of decades, I have seen several examples where people who were risk averse and prudent got shafted, as individual risk and loss -both on the level of households and banks- were socialised, while those who avoided profiting from risky propositions to avoid risk got the short end - they paid the premium for reduced risk and at the end as it turned out faced just the same risk than those who yoloed.

[The Brain]

Using kids as hostages to get to stay in the big house doesn't sound sound.

[Tamas]

Yeah. If the state wants to help, how about they purchase the property for the price of the outstanding mortgage and renting it back to the previous owners? I bet that wouldn't be such a popular idea.

[Josquius]

I dunno. Stopping kids from losing their home sounds like a good thing to me.
Needs to be done in such a way of course where it doesn't reward recklessness. Their parents are still going to pay for it at some point.
But plenty of perfectly valid reasons why someone could have fallen behind on mortgage payments having done nothing wrong.

But why be financially prudent then? In the last couple of decades, I have seen several examples where people who were risk averse and prudent got shafted, as individual risk and loss -both on the level of households and banks- were socialised, while those who avoided profiting from risky propositions to avoid risk got the short end - they paid the premium for reduced risk and at the end as it turned out faced just the same risk than those who yoloed.

That's the same logic as why bother with anything at all as benefits exist.

Some parents are irresponsible. It sucks. But making kids suffer for it is terrible. It's not their fault.
As said too it shouldn't be done in such a way to encourage recklessness - repayments demanded in future et al-but stopping the absolute worst consequences is a good thing.

[Sheilbh]

It does feel like the state paying for everyone's mortgages is the final boss of British politics

I think more likely will just be the state getting lenders to extend and pretend as they did in the financial crisis and around the pandemic.

[HVC]

It's not like the kids will be homeless, they'll just move to a smaller, and affordable, house. It'll also help lower the market so that other families (and their children) will be able to afford houses.

[Josquius]

It's not like the kids will be homeless,

Not been following current trends in the UK then?