Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be really enjoying Boris Johnson's downfall?

998 replies

GrendelsGrandma · 19/01/2022 07:27

I know he'll be replaced by someone equally awful and I know he's not quite gone yet, but I can't remember when I felt uplifted about politics and the ejection of this national embarrassment is warming my cockles. Anyone else feel the same?

OP posts:
merrymouse · 20/01/2022 08:57

What you need more than anything is 54 letters to the 1922 committee. That never happened, so it doesn't matter who wants to challenge the PM - they cannot do so.

54 letters at some point before the next general election.

Given his track record, we are just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Peregrina · 20/01/2022 09:01

There was nothing in the law about work gatherings, so I'm afraid it would be a case of trying to persuade a judge that the law somehow included such events. "What?" says his honour "You mean that the law prevents workers having a snack or a drink on the premises? I hardly think so. Case dismissed".

So there really is nothing to be gained by the one poster flogging the "Starmer had a beer while working" story then. Glad that's been cleared up.

merrymouse · 20/01/2022 09:06

There was nothing in the law about work gatherings, so I'm afraid it would be a case of trying to persuade a judge that the law somehow included such events. "What?" says his honour "You mean that the law prevents workers having a snack or a drink on the premises? I hardly think so. Case dismissed".

The more you try to pretend this was a work gathering, the worse you make Johnson look.

Blossomtoes · 20/01/2022 09:06

The deadline was last night and they didn’t come close.

There is no deadline. A slow steady accumulation of letters triggers a leadership contest when the magic 54 is achieved. That could be today or in six months time. There’ll be an avalanche of them if the Tories get a pasting in the May local elections.

ClaudineClare · 20/01/2022 09:10

My burning question of the day is: do janiiejones and Florianus have some sort of rota worked out between them for coming on this thread to defend the No. 10 hi-jinks?

Florianus · 20/01/2022 09:10

Feel free to offer your own definition for our amusement.

Why? The event is claimed not to have been a party and the law does not mention parties. You need to focus on whether the event was or was not allowed by regulations in force at the time, not on the irrelevant notion of whether it was a party.

IamnotSethRogan · 20/01/2022 09:11

I have pondered why the 2019 MPs are leading this, aren’t they in due to landslide

Yes but a lot if them are from constituencies that will have no problem voting Labour after watching this shit show

Blossomtoes · 20/01/2022 09:12

@Florianus

Feel free to offer your own definition for our amusement.

Why? The event is claimed not to have been a party and the law does not mention parties. You need to focus on whether the event was or was not allowed by regulations in force at the time, not on the irrelevant notion of whether it was a party.

Quite. Why don’t you do that? You’ve spent the entire thread insisting it didn’t meet the definition of a party so somehow managed to be legal.
ClaudineClare · 20/01/2022 09:14

@florianus, You said at one point on this thread that you really dislike Johnson, yet you seem to want to defend Partygate. I am really curious to know why?

merrymouse · 20/01/2022 09:18

Alcoholic drink with lunch in April 2021 is not the same as a social event for 100 people after work where people are invited to bring a bottle in May 2020.

You might think it’s wrong to drink with lunch, in which case please do complain to the Labour Party.

Whatever you think of

Florianus · 20/01/2022 09:22

@ClaudineClare

My burning question of the day is: do janiiejones and Florianus have some sort of rota worked out between them for coming on this thread to defend the No. 10 hi-jinks?
If you learn to read properly you will realise that I do not defend what happened in the No.10 garden - I have repeatedly pointed out that those responsible should be disciplined. But blaming the wrong person will get you nowhere.
Florianus · 20/01/2022 09:24

[quote ClaudineClare]@florianus, You said at one point on this thread that you really dislike Johnson, yet you seem to want to defend Partygate. I am really curious to know why?[/quote]
I do not defend partygate, but I criticise idiots who don't realise who was to blame. Read the invitation if you don't know who organised the event.

MarshaBradyo · 20/01/2022 09:25

@IamnotSethRogan

I have pondered why the 2019 MPs are leading this, aren’t they in due to landslide

Yes but a lot if them are from constituencies that will have no problem voting Labour after watching this shit show

That doesn’t help them though unless they get a new leader who can keep attracting those voters Johnson despite being elite etc did it but that doesn’t mean any Cons leader can

It is true there’s no guarantee he can again but these people are only MPs due to the landslide, I’d like to know who they think can deliver it for them next time. They need to get aligned on who are they backing

ThinkAboutItTomorrow · 20/01/2022 09:26

Who cares if it was a party? It doesn't matter.

Johnson himself has said that he regrets not putting a stop to it at the time. So he recognises IT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!

He's basically said 'sorry shouldn't have done that' and hoping people forgive and forget his gross error of judgement / entitled belief the rules are for little people not him.

The question is will people forgive and forget?

I won't but I hated him anyway, I just hope that all the people who were willing to forgive his previous lies and mistakes are going to see this as a step too far.

Florianus · 20/01/2022 09:27

Blossomtoes
You’ve spent the entire thread insisting it didn’t meet the definition of a party so somehow managed to be legal

The definition of a party is irrelevant because the law never mentioned parties. Surely you must realise that by now? It really is getting tedious to have to keep making the same point over and over for the hard of understanding.

AdamRyan · 20/01/2022 09:29

Hmm. Didn't we also have a lot of conversation about the "spirit of the law" at the time to try to stop people nitpicking and finding legal loopholes to justify risky behaviour?

Florianus · 20/01/2022 09:30

@ThinkAboutItTomorrow

Who cares if it was a party? It doesn't matter.

Johnson himself has said that he regrets not putting a stop to it at the time. So he recognises IT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED!

He's basically said 'sorry shouldn't have done that' and hoping people forgive and forget his gross error of judgement / entitled belief the rules are for little people not him.

The question is will people forgive and forget?

I won't but I hated him anyway, I just hope that all the people who were willing to forgive his previous lies and mistakes are going to see this as a step too far.

It's easy for Johnson to say that now, but the point is that at the time he did not put a stop to it because, as he said, he believed it was a work event.
Blossomtoes · 20/01/2022 09:31

@Florianus

Blossomtoes You’ve spent the entire thread insisting it didn’t meet the definition of a party so somehow managed to be legal

The definition of a party is irrelevant because the law never mentioned parties. Surely you must realise that by now? It really is getting tedious to have to keep making the same point over and over for the hard of understanding.

It’s getting very tedious reading the same irrelevant point time after time. You’ve even admitted yourself that the point you’ve hammered home ad nauseum in post after post has no relevance. It’s so amusing when people start arguing against themselves.
BashStreetKid · 20/01/2022 09:32

Florianus, how many work events have you been to that were "Bring your own booze"?

WindyState · 20/01/2022 09:35

"It's easy for Johnson to say that now, but the point is that at the time he did not put a stop to it because, as he said, he believed it was a work event."

Yeah, sure.

merrymouse · 20/01/2022 09:36

I have pondered why the 2019 MPs are leading this, aren’t they in due to landslide

Even Johnson has admitted that many were ‘borrowed’ voters who didn’t vote Labour because they wanted Brexit and didn’t like Corbyn

They were prepared to give Johnson a try, but their vote was on approval.

MarshaBradyo · 20/01/2022 09:39

@merrymouse

I have pondered why the 2019 MPs are leading this, aren’t they in due to landslide

Even Johnson has admitted that many were ‘borrowed’ voters who didn’t vote Labour because they wanted Brexit and didn’t like Corbyn

They were prepared to give Johnson a try, but their vote was on approval.

Yes I understand that but it doesn’t help the 2019 to stay in next time

Unless they think someone else can do better than Johnson

I’m not sure where they get that confidence

Notonthestairs · 20/01/2022 09:39

It's getting silly now.

Regulations allowed people to go in to work where they could not reasonably be expected to work from home.

Whilst at work they were expected to minimise all meetings "and other gatherings" in the workplace.

So no need to define parties.

And any BYOB jolly to enjoy the sunshine could not be described as minimising meeting/gatherings (work or otherwise).

merrymouse · 20/01/2022 09:40

It is true there’s no guarantee he can again but these people are only MPs due to the landslide, I’d like to know who they think can deliver it for them next time. They need to get aligned on who are they backing

I suspect they think that, they themselves can swing it as long as they don’t have an actively toxic leader. See also Scottish Conservatives.

merrymouse · 20/01/2022 09:44

@Notonthestairs

It's getting silly now.

Regulations allowed people to go in to work where they could not reasonably be expected to work from home.

Whilst at work they were expected to minimise all meetings "and other gatherings" in the workplace.

So no need to define parties.

And any BYOB jolly to enjoy the sunshine could not be described as minimising meeting/gatherings (work or otherwise).

Exactly.

Any quibbling over supposed loop holes just suggests that the rules were always quite loose and that all those people who suffered hugely because they obeyed the spirit of the law were mugs.