Thread 21 Sunak, Return of the Numpties

[DuncinToffee]

And so we continue.

Previous thread

www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4699406-thread-20-sunak-and-the-winter-of-discontent?page=1

There are photos.....

Boris Johnson: "It is surreal to discover the (Privileges) Committee proposes to rely on evidence culled and orchestrated by Sue Gray, who has just been appointed Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Labour Party."

Oh this evidence is glorious, and absolutely damning! I can't believe I'm overseas on a business trip w/c 20th March.

Perhaps a slightly dim question, when BJ is found guilty AF, what happens to him then?

Not a dim question and I have no idea either.

I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is 'not much' @DuncinToffee Ugh

Nadine dorries will offer to do time for him 🤷

"Perhaps a slightly dim question, when BJ is found guilty AF, what happens to him then?"

As I understand it after oral evidence (later this month) the Committee will submit their final report with final conclusions and (if necessary) suggested sanctions.

I think Sunak needs then to put it before Parliament and MPs will get to vote on what they think is appropriate.

I am just bookmarking this video in case the boris fans show up. Finding things again on twitter is almost impossible these days

twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1631640387688312837?t=QOzsoNhE--7J-JWjeHGwmg&s=19
Important to remember what Boris Johnson said about Sue Gray's report at the time. How "profoundly grateful" he was, how "humbled", how fully he "accepted responsibility", "looked in the mirror" and "learned lessons".

How he used that report to stay in power.

Oh so it's on Sky News now... If he's found guilty, he 'may' be suspended from parliament. If the suspension is reasonable, his constituents 'may' if they vote in sufficient numbers trigger a recall and therefore a by-election. Probably unlikely.

So the previous answer remains. Q) If Boris Johnson is found guilty, what will happen to him? A) Not much.

What a bloody surprise.

*If the suspension is of a reasonable length.

I think my DD has it correct. Boris cannot have misled parliament because no one believed a word he was saying anyway.

He will be like Trump, always present and playing up to his fan base

I suppose the next question is whether he'll turn up to give oral evidence and instead claim vindication/Sue Grey made me do it.

From memory if the suspension is more than 10 days a recall petition can be started. I suspect that for any Tory MP in any constituency a recall petition would quickly fill up in that situation, let alone Boris. I forget the number of required signatures, but it isn't massive - perhaps 10,000.

ODFO BJ. You could not stop saying how principled, unbiaised and apolitical SG was. How she was to be trusted. Now she isn't. Funny that.

Reason for the delay

twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1631635027917172738?t=nCpNoqmeQaA_Xasj4BJtQA&s=19

Confirming my story from last week:
^^
The committee says Johnson's government provided "documents which were so heavily
redacted as to render them devoid of any evidential value. Some material had been
redacted even though it was already in the public domain. "On 18 November, though, Sunak's government "finally" made an "unredacted disclosure of all relevant material".
But the delay surely raises questions - yet again - over how the civil service behaved under Johnson Maybe it's just another thing Simon Case thinks is "hilarious"

He seems to voluntarily suspend himself from the house anyway. Holidays, after dinner speeches, secret meeting with Russians in Italian castles; it's a wonder he has time to ever attend HoC.

Surely to goodness though, if there's a public outcry over him misleading the house and he's seen to not suffer too much for it it will strengthen the case for a reform of mp/parliamentary standards.

Your DD talks sense and has summed it up in a nutshell

It would I think be interesting to hear the views of previous Cabinet Secretary's on the behaviour and ethics of Simon Case.

I cannot for example imagine Robin Butler behaving in the same way.

However given how biased and untrustworthy Sue Gray has turned out to be there might be an inquiry into the inquiry?

Am I right in thinking that Boris' next move is to strengthen Sir Keir Beer's argument for radical reform of the House of Lords.

Now we can all see that Sue Gray was a Labour party plant put there by but Jeremy Corbyn because he did not know what a woman was. It is all starting to make sense, yes. Boris spent all his time watering the plants, but in fact was a Labour party plant himself determined to destroy the Tory party, at which he may have succeeded.

Agreed. He's recently been sworn in to the Privy Council too. He used to be Prince William's private secretary.

He makes me sick. Mocking holidaymakers coming off a plane and into a 'shoebox' for 2 weeks. He has no idea why those 'holidaymakers' had to make the journey they did. They would hardly have put themselves through it without a very valid reason.

I think he should be sacked personally.

I am really confused. The report says Johnson may have mislead Parliament, yet Johnson has said the following? From the Gruniad:

It is clear from this report that I have not committed any contempt of parliament. It is also clear that what I have been saying about this matter from the beginning has been vindicated.

It is clear from this report that I have not committed any contempt of parliament.

That is because there is no evidence in the report that I knowingly or recklessly misled parliament, or that I failed to update parliament in a timely manner.

Nor is there any evidence in the report that I was aware that any events taking place in No 10 or the Cabinet Office were in breach of the rules or the guidance.

Like any prime minister I relied upon advice from officials. There is no evidence that I was at any stage advised by anyone, whether a civil servant or a political adviser, that an event would be against the rules or the guidance before it went ahead. There is no evidence that I was later advised that any such event was contrary to requirements.

So, when I told the house that the rules and the guidance had been followed, that was my honest belief.

He said that, if he had known about “a matter of such importance” (ie, Partygate), he would have raised it with his team, and they would have raised it with him. He went on:

No such concerns were raised on either side and all my statements to the House of Commons were based on that understanding and advice.

He's lying.

No! Surely not.

it's just so half arsed though. I mean I understand why he's doing it but it's so easily disproved that it begs the question why bother.