Westministenders: The Only Election That Matters - The Tory One

[RedToothBrush]

Fallout from the Euro Elections makes for interesting reading for the leadership hopefuls.

Its not a clear cut as some make out. There is still a case for a deal. The trouble is passing it through parliament. And there is no time to do that. Nor no will.

Any new leader's priority isn't going to be a deal. Its going to be avoiding a General Election. And thats going to be hard.

We are also realistically facing the prospect of another extension which France is likely to block leading to no deal or no deal.

Or a 2nd Referendum.

A 2nd Referendum might be the only way to avoid a General Election. And that will still have no deal on the ballot. Of that you can be sure.

Peter Foster of the Telegraph remarked this morning that in fact the only way to a deal now, might well be via no deal, because of all the routes we have exhausted through incompetence. And that will come at a very high price.

TiP banned? This is shurely shome mhistake!

I do hope Boris gets a community service sentence. Washing buses preferably.

I think Boris' punishment is to have chained himself too closely to one side of an argument meaning he's forced to forever act in their interests not his own anymore.

He will be a character in a 22nd century comic operetta ...

The billiard sharp whom any one catches
His doom’s extremely hard
He’s made to dwell
In a dungeon cell
On a spot that’s always barred
And there he plays extravagant matches
In fitless finger-stalls
On cloth untrue
With a twisted cue
And elliptical billiard balls

I do hope Boris gets a community service sentence. Washing buses preferably.

I hope he goes to prison. And I hope his trial is the first of many.

Now what about Penny Mourdant and Priti Patel, who both stated that the UK could not veto imminent Turkish EU membership?

The UK could be a trailblazer. Many heads of countries SHOULD be in prison, but for the UK to have it's Prime Minister shacked up in one would be a first (unless DGR knows otherwise).

Turkey would have a lot of work to do before being considered for membership. With it's central role in world trade and influence centuries ago there should be no real reason why it could not be a member as a natural bridge between Christian and Muslim cultures.
With the current leadership making it a very remote possibility of it happening.

In all reality, I can't see BoJo being convicted, mores the pity.

However, it would be nice to skewer him on the witness stand and extract some real truth from him. I can't see any High Court judge being impressed by his "phwoar, whiffle, bugabug" blustering.

Erdogan calling Merkel a Nazi may not have helped the Turkish claim. All new members must be unanimously approved by all existing members, a fact denied by Mourdant and Patel who both insisted that the EU could take the UK's veto away.

Mourdant's later 'clarification' seemed to amount to a suggestion that she didn't trust David Cameron to use the veto. But not that it stopped her taking a job in his govt.

It's Crown Court!

And it's the jury he needs to watch out for. So who knows what will happen?!

And it's the jury he needs to watch out for. So who knows what will happen?!

It may not see a jury. The first thing a competent defence would do is try and get the judge to throw the case out.

(I had a brief vision of the scene from Blackadder with George being played by Grayling ....)

Hopefully some damage will be done to Boris with his defence being that this is purely a vexatious, politically motivated case and that he was not acting in his capacity as MP/Mayor when he said the £350 million. He has not tried to defend the £350 million as being truthful.

Hopefully some damage will be done to Boris with his defence being that this is purely a vexatious, politically motivated case and that he was not acting in his capacity as MP/Mayor when he said the £350 million.

So why do we have MPs, or Mayors, if the person in the role can simply take it off like a coat when it suits them ? That'll be an interesting defence to run with ...

Anyway, did he make that clear at the time he stood in front of the bus ?

When is his next court appearance? It seems to me that he shouldn't really be running for PM with a court case hanging over his head -especially one where he could end up with a sentence of life in prison (pleasepleasepleaseplease). If he became PM and was then convicted, he'd have to stand down, cue another leadership challenge. Now, I know expecting Boris to do the honourable thing is a bit like expecting time to turn backwards, water to flow uphill and the earth to change it's direction of rotation ... but someone ought to take him to one side and explain that he really should stand aside, if it looks like this thing will still be ongoing when the leadership contest finally comes to a head.

After all - he doesn't want to be the first PM in British history that was forced to stand down due to criminal convictions/ prison sentence, does he? I don't think that's what he sees when he sees himself in the top job.
Plus, as a regular mp, a criminal conviction is really only a matter of interest in the UK. The EU would snigger up their sleeve because they don't like him - but no one else would care. But the British Prime minister getting sent to prison for lying to the people would send shockwaves around the world - everyone would hear about it. Plus, once we'd done it, it would give other people ideas - it would destroy the political classes ability to lie, across the globe, I'm sure that's not what Boris wants. He likes being able to lie.

But I'm running away with myself. He'll wriggle out of it - of course he will. I'm going to enjoy the days before that happens though - the possibility that he'll be made to pay for the damage he's done ... and that that can get the ball rolling for the rest of them.

I doubt it would be hard to find a couple of punters to stand up in court and say they believed the big red shiny bus he was stood in front of my mum for one.

It seems to me that he shouldn't really be running for PM with a court case hanging over his head

It's interesting to "what-if ?" the possibility that he chooses not to stand as a result. Thus sidestepping the shitshow whoever is next PM will have to endure. It could also guarantee his becoming the PM after that.

Assuming the PM after that is a tory one! (not guaranteed)

Imagine a world in which politicians actually may have to think about what they say else face accountability ......it’ll never catch on you know.

DG cynic in me agrees BJ being forced to step down leadership race.

Assuming the PM after that is a tory one! (not guaranteed)

If I were a senior politician in a major UK political party, I would have been planning for a hung parliament of various compositions for a while now. In an ideal world, such thinking would be in the open and amongst a large cross party grouping. (Of course that would have to be in a country that isn't the UK - we'd never be so rational).

There is a case that the leader of the largest party gets to be PM - as with Cameron in the 2010-2015 coalition. However, there also needs to be a recognition that by requiring the votes of another party to form government, the largest party also lose a few things. Maybe the right to impose the PM ? Because I can see a situation where a party needed for a coalition makes it a condition that is not PM.

In hindsight, no matter how you view their conduct in coalition, the decision of the LibDems to enter into a formal one, rather than a shadowy S&C arrangement we have now seems impossibly progressive.

We also need to consider the "awful" possibility that the next election produces an outcome where three parties will need to be in coalition to deliver a majority. We almost got there in 2017.

Imagine a world in which politicians actually may have to think about what they say else face accountability

I'm surprised the phrase "chilling effect" hasn't started trending yet. I guess it's half term ?

Exaggeration, misdirection, selective quoting, false logic - even personal slurs - are a long established tradition of "robust political debate". However if you accept there has to be a line (presumably even people opposed to this particular case agree that ?) then how else can you draw that line except by a court case ?

Of course, if opponents of this particular case are suggesting there shouldn't be a line, then .... well let's line up Gove, Farage and anyone else who feels hard enough, and see what we can throw ... although I suspect they'd find a line PDQ.

"Lock him up! Lock him up!"

No uncomfortable resonances there?

T be clear, I loathe Johnson: I think he's a particularly dangerous combination of amorality and overarching ambition.

The £350million lie on the bus, which convinced many decent people to vote Leave, in the belief they were supporting the NHS, was appalling.Those responsible should be held to account. They should be so shamed by public opinion and the media that there's little chance of them ever getting elected , as MPs, again.

Instead, one of them will probably become PM.

This country is in an appalling place.
Still not convinced that enthusiasm for a chant of "Lock him up" actually improves politics.

Still not convinced that enthusiasm for a chant of "Lock him up" actually improves politics.

So, returning to my point, where is the line ? You either have one, or you don't.

We already have lines - some fucking harsh ones too - for libel, slander, and getting up to funnies with other peoples money. Does becoming a politician exempt one from such piffling restraints on behaviour ? Or (as many feel) should it exhort a higher standard of behaviour ?

As long as politicians - MPs in particular - are happy to accept payment and privilege for being part of a machine which can deprive citizens of property, liberty and (in some dreadful cases) their lives, then I for one believe it requires they exhibit the standard of behaviour they are demanding (with the menaces of the legal system) of others.

The alternative is Imperial Rome, where the Emperor is a living god, or a France where the King once said l'etat - c'est moi. And for the history dodgers amongst us, neither of those two situations had a happy ending. Of any sort.

Would we be happy with a Nixon-esque government ....

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Mueller has just confirmed:

@RobertMackey
10m10 minutes ago
Mueller reiterates that his report does not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, and notes that charging the president with a federal crime "was not an option we could consider" given Justice Department guidelines.

And

@chrisgeidner
"If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller says. Due to DOJ policy, he also says, "Charging the President with a crime, therefore, was not an option we could consider."

David Allen Green is normally very cautious about litigating when politicking is preferable, but he seems to think Ball has a reasonable case.

For a ha'porth of law a kingdom might be saved.......

woman so they are essentially saying that we know he is a wrong’un but he’s the president, so you know, shit happens you lot decide....

It may not see a jury. The first thing a competent defence would do is try and get the judge to throw the case out.

Bearing in mind it's been a judicial decision to summons him, is that likely to happen (i.e. it's not a CPS-led charge)? Also, does this happen in the U.K.? I feel compelled to ask my friend who works for the CPS as I don't know (not ever having had anything beyond an afternoon in the Mags in Corby to compare it with!).

Pretzels, the next hearing is the plea and case management hearing (so he'll state whether he's pleading innocent or guilty and the timetable to Court will be set, from vague memory!), but I'm not sure when that will be. Hopefully soon.

I don't think he should run for PM with this hanging over his head. Especially given the reason for the charge.