LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

pinno

morstar said:

Jezyboy said:

According to a quick Google, the combined wealth of the Sunaks is already 10x greater than Blair's!

But that’s my secondary point. Blair has a far higher long term global profile than Sunak did despite relative their wealth.
By becoming PM, Sunak global recognition is significantly enhanced. That is status money can’t buy.

Unless you are Liz Truss.

morstar

pinno said:

morstar said:

Jezyboy said:

According to a quick Google, the combined wealth of the Sunaks is already 10x greater than Blair's!

But that’s my secondary point. Blair has a far higher long term global profile than Sunak did despite relative their wealth.
By becoming PM, Sunak global recognition is significantly enhanced. That is status money can’t buy.

Unless you are Liz Truss.

Fair.

morstar

Although it would be nice to think that the passage of time recognises the notoriety of her trussterfuck rather than relegates her to a brief footnote.

She wanted a legacy, it’d be nice for her to have one.

rick_chasey

Do we think the result would be different if he was still PM?

Jezyboy

morstar said:

Jezyboy said:

According to a quick Google, the combined wealth of the Sunaks is already 10x greater than Blair's!

But that’s my secondary point. Blair has a far higher long term global profile than Sunak did despite relative their wealth.
By becoming PM, Sunak global recognition is significantly enhanced. That is status money can’t buy.

I think Blair is quite a special case though. He was PM for a very long time and has a complex and interesting legacy.

Sunak is unlikely to be PM for very long and unlikely to have a particularly noteworthy legacy. Albeit the Windsor Framework would probably wlbe worth acclaim, if not for the fact that some of the higher profile Tories are in open rebellion against it.

morstar

Would we have any clue who Rishi Sunak was if he were just a n other wealthy person?
Sunak is in this for status and a legacy that supersedes what his wealth can buy. He may even believe in what he stands for (although that’s never a given).

Pross

tailwindhome said:

Pross said:

What is the sanction for Johnson if the committee determines he did lie?

Up the to committee, then a vote on the sanction in the HoC

The big one is a 10 day suspension- leaves him open to a recall petition and a potential by-election

Doesn't feel like a major punishment and he still seems oddly popular with the general public so would probably get re-elected which he would see as vindication and an example of how the 'establishment' is out of touch with the people. Again, very much Trump style.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

His only defence now is that if they did it, how could it be against the rules or guidance? They didn't break the rules.

Unusually I found him more coherent than the committee.

He makes it very difficult to call them "lies" when he is so consistent in his commitment to something that is inherently unbelievable.

Did he mislead the house if he has convinced himself that he genuinely believed those events that he attended were within the guidance when they were obviously not within the guidance?

When he says that in-person leaving drinks were absolutely vital to the operation, and that he would have told anyone else the same if asked in one of the briefings - does he actually believe that fundamentally unbelievable thing?

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

tailwindhome said:

Pross said:

What is the sanction for Johnson if the committee determines he did lie?

Up the to committee, then a vote on the sanction in the HoC

The big one is a 10 day suspension- leaves him open to a recall petition and a potential by-election

Doesn't feel like a major punishment and he still seems oddly popular with the general public so would probably get re-elected which he would see as vindication and an example of how the 'establishment' is out of touch with the people. Again, very much Trump style.

It is almost taken as given that he would not get re-elected

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

tailwindhome said:

Pross said:

What is the sanction for Johnson if the committee determines he did lie?

Up the to committee, then a vote on the sanction in the HoC

The big one is a 10 day suspension- leaves him open to a recall petition and a potential by-election

Doesn't feel like a major punishment and he still seems oddly popular with the general public so would probably get re-elected which he would see as vindication and an example of how the 'establishment' is out of touch with the people. Again, very much Trump style.

It is almost taken as given that he would not get re-elected

Would 1:10 voters in the Constituency sign the recall petition? Most can't even be bothered to vote.

Pross

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

tailwindhome said:

Pross said:

What is the sanction for Johnson if the committee determines he did lie?

Up the to committee, then a vote on the sanction in the HoC

The big one is a 10 day suspension- leaves him open to a recall petition and a potential by-election

Doesn't feel like a major punishment and he still seems oddly popular with the general public so would probably get re-elected which he would see as vindication and an example of how the 'establishment' is out of touch with the people. Again, very much Trump style.

It is almost taken as given that he would not get re-elected

Would 1:10 voters in the Constituency sign the recall petition? Most can't even be bothered to vote.

Surprisingly, of the 3 cases where there has been a recall petition, 2 actually comfortably met the 10% (nearly 30% for the MP that falsified speeding tickets) and the other only just missed (9.8%). I guess this follows in the traditions of it being fairly easy to get a 'negative' vote.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

tailwindhome said:

Pross said:

What is the sanction for Johnson if the committee determines he did lie?

Up the to committee, then a vote on the sanction in the HoC

The big one is a 10 day suspension- leaves him open to a recall petition and a potential by-election

Doesn't feel like a major punishment and he still seems oddly popular with the general public so would probably get re-elected which he would see as vindication and an example of how the 'establishment' is out of touch with the people. Again, very much Trump style.

It is almost taken as given that he would not get re-elected

Would 1:10 voters in the Constituency sign the recall petition? Most can't even be bothered to vote.

Yes. Two out of three have succeeded so far, and I think they'd get the required number who dislike him within the six week period.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

His only defence now is that if they did it, how could it be against the rules or guidance? They didn't break the rules.

Unusually I found him more coherent than the committee.

He makes it very difficult to call them "lies" when he is so consistent in his commitment to something that is inherently unbelievable.

Did he mislead the house if he has convinced himself that he genuinely believed those events that he attended were within the guidance when they were obviously not within the guidance?

When he says that in-person leaving drinks were absolutely vital to the operation, and that he would have told anyone else the same if asked in one of the briefings - does he actually believe that fundamentally unbelievable thing?

I recognise that the public don't buy it, but his argument around leaving speeches is that it was a stressful time and he didn't want morale to drop, so he maintains it was important to recognise the person's service for the benefit of everyone. This is different to leaving drinks that go on all night which seemed to be the committee's focus.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

His only defence now is that if they did it, how could it be against the rules or guidance? They didn't break the rules.

Unusually I found him more coherent than the committee.

He makes it very difficult to call them "lies" when he is so consistent in his commitment to something that is inherently unbelievable.

Did he mislead the house if he has convinced himself that he genuinely believed those events that he attended were within the guidance when they were obviously not within the guidance?

When he says that in-person leaving drinks were absolutely vital to the operation, and that he would have told anyone else the same if asked in one of the briefings - does he actually believe that fundamentally unbelievable thing?

I recognise that the public don't buy it, but his argument around leaving speeches is that it was a stressful time and he didn't want morale to drop, so he maintains it was important to recognise the person's service for the benefit of everyone. This is different to leaving drinks that go on all night which seemed to be the committee's focus.

I am not following this as ultimately it's only the outcome that matters, but isn't the committee about whether he lied to parliament, and so the above is broadly irrelevant?

What does him thinking the leaving drinks are "vital" anything to do with him lying to parliament? Either he lied or he didn't.

We know he did break the rules - that's already been established by the police.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

His only defence now is that if they did it, how could it be against the rules or guidance? They didn't break the rules.

Unusually I found him more coherent than the committee.

He makes it very difficult to call them "lies" when he is so consistent in his commitment to something that is inherently unbelievable.

Did he mislead the house if he has convinced himself that he genuinely believed those events that he attended were within the guidance when they were obviously not within the guidance?

When he says that in-person leaving drinks were absolutely vital to the operation, and that he would have told anyone else the same if asked in one of the briefings - does he actually believe that fundamentally unbelievable thing?

I recognise that the public don't buy it, but his argument around leaving speeches is that it was a stressful time and he didn't want morale to drop, so he maintains it was important to recognise the person's service for the benefit of everyone. This is different to leaving drinks that go on all night which seemed to be the committee's focus.

It wasn't the committee's sole focus, they also sought to establish whether he thought the leaving drinks were absolutely essential.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

His only defence now is that if they did it, how could it be against the rules or guidance? They didn't break the rules.

Unusually I found him more coherent than the committee.

He makes it very difficult to call them "lies" when he is so consistent in his commitment to something that is inherently unbelievable.

Did he mislead the house if he has convinced himself that he genuinely believed those events that he attended were within the guidance when they were obviously not within the guidance?

When he says that in-person leaving drinks were absolutely vital to the operation, and that he would have told anyone else the same if asked in one of the briefings - does he actually believe that fundamentally unbelievable thing?

I recognise that the public don't buy it, but his argument around leaving speeches is that it was a stressful time and he didn't want morale to drop, so he maintains it was important to recognise the person's service for the benefit of everyone. This is different to leaving drinks that go on all night which seemed to be the committee's focus.

I am not following this as ultimately it's only the outcome that matters, but isn't the committee about whether he lied to parliament, and so the above is broadly irrelevant?

What does him thinking the leaving drinks are "vital" anything to do with him lying to parliament? Either he lied or he didn't.

We know he did break the rules - that's already been established by the police.

It's about whether he "deliberately or recklessly" misled the house. It's already accepted by Johnson that he misled the house.

If he genuinely thought that the leaving drinks were within the guidance - which he claims that they were because they were absolutely essential and there was some perspex next door - then he can say that he thought that everything he saw was within the guidance.

Then it's down to the fact that he was assured by people at the law breaking events that he didn't realise were happening seemingly constantly that they were OK, and he goes all Captain Renault on it.

The committee also seem to suggest it was reckless to rely on only his communications directors to assure him everything was OK, rather than permanent civil servants or lawyers.

rick_chasey

So his argument is he's a stupid idiot rather than a duplicitous liar?

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

His only defence now is that if they did it, how could it be against the rules or guidance? They didn't break the rules.

Unusually I found him more coherent than the committee.

He makes it very difficult to call them "lies" when he is so consistent in his commitment to something that is inherently unbelievable.

Did he mislead the house if he has convinced himself that he genuinely believed those events that he attended were within the guidance when they were obviously not within the guidance?

When he says that in-person leaving drinks were absolutely vital to the operation, and that he would have told anyone else the same if asked in one of the briefings - does he actually believe that fundamentally unbelievable thing?

I recognise that the public don't buy it, but his argument around leaving speeches is that it was a stressful time and he didn't want morale to drop, so he maintains it was important to recognise the person's service for the benefit of everyone. This is different to leaving drinks that go on all night which seemed to be the committee's focus.

It wasn't the committee's sole focus, they also sought to establish whether he thought the leaving drinks were absolutely essential.

They repeated the same misleading point multiple times. It was even more tedious than Boris's repetitive responses.

kingstongraham

I didn't hear any mention of the Whatsapp message from Jack Doyle where he said "I don’t know what we say about the flat."

Has that been mentioned? The party/parties in the flat don't seem to have been a focus of anyone.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

His only defence now is that if they did it, how could it be against the rules or guidance? They didn't break the rules.

Unusually I found him more coherent than the committee.

He makes it very difficult to call them "lies" when he is so consistent in his commitment to something that is inherently unbelievable.

Did he mislead the house if he has convinced himself that he genuinely believed those events that he attended were within the guidance when they were obviously not within the guidance?

When he says that in-person leaving drinks were absolutely vital to the operation, and that he would have told anyone else the same if asked in one of the briefings - does he actually believe that fundamentally unbelievable thing?

I recognise that the public don't buy it, but his argument around leaving speeches is that it was a stressful time and he didn't want morale to drop, so he maintains it was important to recognise the person's service for the benefit of everyone. This is different to leaving drinks that go on all night which seemed to be the committee's focus.

I am not following this as ultimately it's only the outcome that matters, but isn't the committee about whether he lied to parliament, and so the above is broadly irrelevant?

What does him thinking the leaving drinks are "vital" anything to do with him lying to parliament? Either he lied or he didn't.

We know he did break the rules - that's already been established by the police.

If the drinks were essential for work purposes they were within the guidance, so his statement to parliament could have been ok.

He did break the rules and was fined. This is an area where the committee could have focussed on. The problem is that a far more salacious version of the incident was briefed to the Times with no reaction, and they were using a photograph from the official photographer, so it is hard to argue that it was obviously a breach of the rules.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

So his argument is he's a stupid idiot rather than a duplicitous liar?

Basically. Also his argument is that it wasn't that important to follow the guidance to the letter if it would have gone against workplace customs.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

I didn't hear any mention of the Whatsapp message from Jack Doyle where he said "I don’t know what we say about the flat."

Has that been mentioned? The party/parties in the flat don't seem to have been a focus of anyone.

I think it came up. It wasn't a message to Boris, so seemed very weak.

I don't think the flat parties came up presumably because his statement was about no. 10 (and that is no. 11).

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

So his argument is he's a stupid idiot rather than a duplicitous liar?

Basically. Also his argument is that it wasn't that important to follow the guidance to the letter if it would have gone against workplace customs.

That's news to the thousands who had to pay fines for this stuff, right?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

So his argument is he's a stupid idiot rather than a duplicitous liar?

Basically. Also his argument is that it wasn't that important to follow the guidance to the letter if it would have gone against workplace customs.

That's news to the thousands who had to pay fines for this stuff, right?

Guidance and rules are different things. No one was fined for not following guidance.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

The committee also seem to suggest it was reckless to rely on only his communications directors to assure him everything was OK, rather than permanent civil servants or lawyers.

That point was particularly ridiculous. "Why didn't you ask someone who wasn't present?" "I did ask him to write a report"

rick_chasey

TBB do you really think he didn’t just get caught and figured he could lie his way out of it?

His story changes throughout the process from the first reports

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

His only defence now is that if they did it, how could it be against the rules or guidance? They didn't break the rules.

Unusually I found him more coherent than the committee.

He makes it very difficult to call them "lies" when he is so consistent in his commitment to something that is inherently unbelievable.

Did he mislead the house if he has convinced himself that he genuinely believed those events that he attended were within the guidance when they were obviously not within the guidance?

When he says that in-person leaving drinks were absolutely vital to the operation, and that he would have told anyone else the same if asked in one of the briefings - does he actually believe that fundamentally unbelievable thing?

I recognise that the public don't buy it, but his argument around leaving speeches is that it was a stressful time and he didn't want morale to drop, so he maintains it was important to recognise the person's service for the benefit of everyone. This is different to leaving drinks that go on all night which seemed to be the committee's focus.

I am not following this as ultimately it's only the outcome that matters, but isn't the committee about whether he lied to parliament, and so the above is broadly irrelevant?

What does him thinking the leaving drinks are "vital" anything to do with him lying to parliament? Either he lied or he didn't.

We know he did break the rules - that's already been established by the police.

crucially it is whether he did so "knowingly"

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TBB do you really think he didn’t just get caught and figured he could lie his way out of it?

His story changes throughout the process from the first reports

I think people's expectations of a PM are somewhat ridiculous, but that's politics. He can live and die by that game.

If he had been explicitly told that rules were being broken and he then lied in parliament, then I think the process would be justified. The committee has been unable to make that case, so I think it is now disproportionate.

He should have qualified his statement about guidance being followed.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TBB do you really think he didn’t just get caught and figured he could lie his way out of it?

His story changes throughout the process from the first reports

I think people's expectations of a PM are somewhat ridiculous, but that's politics. He can live and die by that game.

If he had been explicitly told that rules were being broken and he then lied in parliament, then I think the process would be justified. The committee has been unable to make that case, so I think it is now disproportionate.

He should have qualified his statement about guidance being followed.

He was told that they couldn't justify him saying that, and he said it anyway.

He basically said that he didn't correct it because it would have opened up questions about what guidance wasn't followed etc.

But he should have known they weren't following guidance because they weren't. And it was his guidance. And he was there.

kingstongraham

The person setting the rules and insisting it's really important that guidance is followed shouldn't also be doing as little as possible to follow them in his own workplace. But I understand that's not directly what they are investigating here.