Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

I find it hard to comprehend the political incompetence in Boris lying about this. There's a non-negligile chance that he is forced out over this.

[Tamas]

I find it hard to comprehend the political incompetence in Boris lying about this. There's a non-negligile chance that he is forced out over this.

I think the nation should come to terms with the fact that he is just not very bright.

[Tamas]

And now it seems England is moving to "Plan B" of more strict covid restrictions. The timing surely has nothing do with wanting to wrestle back political initiative.

[Sheilbh]

Doing a statement saying he "understands and shares the anger" at Number 10 staff joking about it. He was also "furious" about it - and apologising unreservedly "for the offence it caused [...] and impression it gives". He's "sickened and furious myself".

Apparently he's been repeatedly assured there's no party and no covid rules

This is in part the problem for Johnson. The cabinet won't do media because they don't trust the line they're being given from Number 10 and with this and the PPS/Pen Farthing thing, it's clear he is perfectly happy to just shaft junior members of his team/staff. Why put yourself forward for a PM showing that type of loyalty?

[Sheilbh]

And now it seems England is moving to "Plan B" of more strict covid restrictions. The timing surely has nothing do with wanting to wrestle back political initiative.

I think that's why it's been moved forward - but I don't think it does that. The scandal is about breaking covid rules, so I'm not sure new covid rules actually moves the news cycle on. If anything I think it probably just feeds a new round of questions/comments: "how can they announce these rules after breaking them last year?" etc.

[Sheilbh]

Dominic Cummings continues to be trying to get his own back:

Dominic Cummings
@Dominic2306
Will the CABSEC also be asked to investigate the *flat* party on Fri 13 Nov, the other flat parties, & the flat's 'bubble' policy...?

Just raised in the Commons and Johnson said "no" not "he'd had assurances that there were no parties" or something similar.

This also plays very well into Starmer's background as a barrister, I think he was very effective - especially comparing the Queen alone at Prince Philip's funeral as an example of leadership while Downing Street partied. I also read that the Tory benches were pretty muted/quiet after Ian Blackford called for Johnson to resign.

Edit: Oh apparently his response was the "no there wasn't a party, but if there was the rules were followed"

[mongers]

Doing a statement saying he "understands and shares the anger" at Number 10 staff joking about it. He was also "furious" about it - and apologising unreservedly "for the offence it caused [...] and impression it gives". He's "sickened and furious myself".

Apparently he's been repeatedly assured there's no party and no covid rules

This is in part the problem for Johnson. The cabinet won't do media because they don't trust the line they're being given from Number 10 and with this and the PPS/Pen Farthing thing, it's clear he is perfectly happy to just shaft junior members of his team/staff. Why put yourself forward for a PM showing that type of loyalty?

A lot of Tories aren't that bright, as it was clear from day one backing Boris meant putting a shameless bullshitter and liar into No.10, someone who had no loyalty to anything other than to his own deluded ambition and ego.

[Sheilbh]

A lot of Tories aren't that bright, as it was clear from day one backing Boris meant putting a shameless bullshitter and liar into No.10, someone who had no loyalty to anything other than to his own deluded ambition and ego.

But they knew all of that - he's never been popular with Tory MPs. They thought despite his flaws, which they knew about, it was worth it because he could win and could reach bits of the country that the Tories had failed in previously. I don't think it was stupidity, but cynicism and I think the calculation shifts the second he fails to be perceived as an "asset" for the next election.

And an anti-vaccine passport Tory MP has just accused Johnson of a "diversionary tactic" around covid restrictions. So he's managed to simultaneously piss off all the opposition around the parties and annoyed lots of Tory backbenchers with new covid restrictions - which is another reason that, while I think it is a diversionary tactic, I don't think it'll work.

Edit: Also lots of people noting that this may be a significant exchange (Starmer also noted that there's a dozen covid breach cases being prosecuted in Westminster Magistrates Court right now):

Christopher HopeMemo
@christopherhope
NEW
Sir Keir Starmer: "Will the PM support the Police and the CPS by handing over everything the Government knows about parties in Downing Street to the Metropolitan Police?"
Boris Johnson: "Of course we will do that..."

[Tamas]

Also lots of people noting that this may be a significant exchange

  Here we go again caring about what Johnson promises or even says. How many more empty promises and blatant lies will it take for people to stop?

[garbon]

I don't understand why he had an aim of becoming PM if this is what he wanted to do with it.

[Sheilbh]

  Here we go again caring about what Johnson promises or even says. How many more empty promises and blatant lies will it take for people to stop?

But it matters. The political context of that promise matters so you've already got Tory backbenchers talking to the press, on the record, saying misleading the Commons is a resigning matter. Now you have a promise on the record you have something every opposition MP can bring up every week and they can also follow up repeatedly with the Met if they have everything. And it's a promise on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary who's a civil servant not a political appointee which, again, can be pursued by opposition MPs. And it's now always a story if, say, disgruntled Number 10 staffers annoyed that their boss has just blamed them go to journalists with documents/info that wasn't disclosed to the police. Plus until now the police have said they don't have any evidence to review so can't investigate (as Stephen Bush pointed out this is basically the Met's approach to crime in London - if there's literally no CCTV they don't investigate), now they will receive evidence.

Johnson or any Prime Minister's promises don't matter because of their performative quality - that they change what will be done - but because they open up avenues of attack and follow up and accountability. It's why politicians, a bit like lawyers, will tend to avoid them and say things like "we'll make best efforts"/"do everything we can"/"not to the best of my knowledge"/"based on assurances I've received" etc - then you basically always have some defence. A statement with no wriggle words is always significant (and normally quite rare). Plus historically there's that old trope that it's normally not the scandal that gets you but the attempted cover up - a statement like that is Act 1 of that trope.

Edit: And also the question from Starmer covers "parties" not just the 18 December one.

I don't understand why he had an aim of becoming PM if this is what he wanted to do with it.

I mean he was a decent Mayor but he delegated very, very heavily to experienced people around him. But the reality is that job is a million miles from being Prime Minister, even though it's an executive role and his time at the FCO gave a better impression of how he's performed.

My guess is that it's a bit like David Cameron he just wanted it because "he thought he'd be quite good at it", nothing more. I don't think there's a driving ideological vision of Britain like with, say, Blair or Thatcher and I don't think there's a public service attitude as I think there was with Brown or May. I think Cameron and Johnson are just old Etonians who thought they could do the job and, as old Etonians, that they should.

But I think there's something similar with, say, Rishi Sunak or various Labour leadership contenders (especially from the New Labour years) of not really being clear what they want the job for. They think they can lead the party/win elections and they think their party/general values will be better than the other side. I suppose the purpose can develop in office, that certainly happened with Blair.

[Tamas]

Now you have a promise on the record

Fair point. I have added it to the list.

[Sheilbh]

And do you not think that's going to be a constant thing Labour hammer at the next election?

[Josquius]

Isnt went into politics and became pm as they thought they'd be good at it a basic summary of Blairs early career?

[Tamas]

And do you not think that's going to be a constant thing Labour hammer at the next election?

Sure, but Boris got away with the Brexit bus as well.