What the country thinks about Johnson

I saw that report on Sky about sexual misconduct in parliament Whitewavemark2. If the allegations are founded it’s shocking, 3 cabinet, 2 shadow cabinet members are included.
news.sky.com/story/three-conservative-cabinet-ministers-referred-to-watchdog-over-sexual-misconduct-allegations-report-12597632. As for Johnson, it doesn’t surprise me, anything in a skirt. Yuck.

Casdon

DaisyAnne

I’m not a Tory, but I think it’s going too far to claim they are all corrupt, incompetent, spineless or whatever adjective one wants to throw at them. It’s not as black and white as it seems, it never is, there will be a lot happening behind the scenes.

I don't believe I said anything like that Casdon. If we followed your thinking, it wouldn't matter how corrupt a government is. If they do behave in the way you seem to approve of, it is just a case of any government selling seats won by their party for the price of support. I think that is undemocratic. We may as well not bother to vote if they are only bound by party rather than conscience. I don't believe such transactional democracy is democracy. However, that appears to be your excuse for this dead and now rotting government.

You seem to see the world in black and white DaisyAnne. I’m not excusing the government or their MPs for what they have done, I’m saying that as individuals there are many shades of grey, and of course, as you put it, it is a transactional democracy - as it is with any government when the leadership is reliant on the fear of losing their jobs to keep the rest in line.

I am talking about lies, and spin taken to the point of propaganda. I can believe, all too easily, that you are not a Conservative Casdon. You seem to be going all out to support this particular far-right government. If those are your politics, I can understand that. Of course, politics is the art of the possible. This thread, however, is not a conversation about politics is it? It is about power.

You seem prepared to ignore the overriding of democracy and the spread of uncertainty and distrust in our systems of state that this government is causing. This government has stood behind a man who uses disinformation, misinformation and malinformation to stay in power. It is not for the "good of the people"; it is for the politicians jobs. It is not even for the good of a political view; it is for the good of the views of a man who believes he was born to rule. The politics that view produces are often not agreed upon by 50% of his MPs - but they still back him for the power it gives them.

Political theories are open to "the art of the possible"; this man's morality is truly indefensible. The morality of his MPs still has time to show itself as being something other than support for a would be dictator.

Of all the people on here, Casdon appears to be amongst the most balanced of all. If anyone thinks she is supportive of the far-right then they are quite a bit off target, I think.

Not that she needs me to defend her

volver

Of all the people on here, Casdon appears to be amongst the most balanced of all. If anyone thinks she is supportive of the far-right then they are quite a bit off target, I think.

Not that she needs me to defend her

I agree volver

It's totally unjustified.

volver

Of all the people on here, Casdon appears to be amongst the most balanced of all. If anyone thinks she is supportive of the far-right then they are quite a bit off target, I think.

Not that she needs me to defend her

Yet again, what I have said has been twisted. I said "You seem to be going all out to support this particular far-right government." Please tell me where, in this thread, that isn't true.

I'm not getting into a tit-for-tat defence of any other poster, so this will be my only comment on the matter.

When a poster explains how party politics works in the Commons, explaining that it is true for any party, it is not then acceptable to call them a supporter of the far right.

volver

I'm not getting into a tit-for-tat defence of any other poster, so this will be my only comment on the matter.

When a poster explains how party politics works in the Commons, explaining that it is true for any party, it is not then acceptable to call them a supporter of the far right.

It's actually your second, not your only comment on this Volver.

I did not "call them (is that the prefered pronoun in this case? I appogise if I haven't used it in other posts) a supporter of the far right". I have little idea which party they support and even less general interest. Strange as it may seem I don't expect anyone to only follow a fixed party view - nor would I do anything other than argue the point in question if if they did.

What I said was ""You seem to be going all out to support this particular far-right government." If you want to argue that this is not a far-right government I could understand that. If you want to argue that the poster was not supporting this government then I could understand that.

However, you chose to argue that poster is not generally supportive of the far-right which seems very odd as I didn't say that. I am also sure she can put her own points and doesn't need a couple of minders.

was not supporting this government was not supporting this government in the context of this thread

To revert to my posts yesterday about the principles of tory MPs.

I find that Andrew Rawnsley (Observer 24/4/22) seems to agree with me to a certain extent:

Can a law-breaker be the country’s chief law-maker? And can a prime minister who has repeatedly and flagrantly misled parliament remain in office? Every day that they allow him to stay there, Tory MPs are choosing to say yes to both those questions. By doing so, the supposed party of law and order makes itself complicit in grave offences that have always previously been regarded as automatic grounds for removal, poisons the public trust in our democracy and sets an atrocious precedent.

To be fair to the Conservatives, some of them are greatly troubled that they are led by a rogue prime minister. The Tory ranks contain people with a moral compass who still attach importance to standards in public life. Their voice was expressed by David Wolfson when he resigned as a justice minister, saying the government can only “credibly defend democratic norms abroad, especially at a time of war in Europe, if we are, and are seen to be, resolutely committed both to the observance of the law and also to the rule of law”.

It is also fair to say that plenty of Tory MPs lose not a wink of sleep over the principles at stake. Otherwise, Mr Johnson would be long gone, rather than clinging on to Number 10 like a grubby piece of chewing gum stuck to the sole of the shoe of the constitution.

I don't think that Rawnsley needs any lectures on the way that party whips operate, either, Casdon. It's not the whips, it's the prevailing lack of principles.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/24/boris-johnson-clings-to-office-like-chewing-gum-on-shoe-becoming-unstuck

MaizieD

Can a law-breaker be the country’s chief law-maker? And can a prime minister who has repeatedly and flagrantly misled parliament remain in office? Every day that they allow him to stay there, Tory MPs are choosing to say yes to both those questions. By doing so, the supposed party of law and order makes itself complicit in grave offences that have always previously been regarded as automatic grounds for removal, poisons the public trust in our democracy and sets an atrocious precedent.

I believe the reason Tory MPs are allowing this is because they know there is still a lot of support for Johnson among the electorate (apart from the fact that said MPs lack integrity).

And that part of the electorate who are insisting that "there's more important things than Downing Street parties" are completely (and possibly knowingly) missing the point - which is that Johnson tried to deceive and mislead Parliament. That's the bloody point.

People babble on about "lots of people probably had parties and broke the Law". Whether they did, or didn't, is again not the point. The "lots of people" are not the PM whose government imposed the rules, they are not in Parliament, they are not bound by codes of honourable conduct, which includes not deliberately lying to the House.

It's akin to the reaction when a spouse has been caught having an affair, and people don't understand why forgiveness is perhaps almost impossible. It's not the affair - it's all the lies upon lies upon lies, which tells the victim that they are not respected, that the offending partner doesn't care about such things as promises, vows, or integrity or honesty.

It's not about Carrie's cake, or the party-poppers, it's about having a man leading our country who lies and misleads because, as one of his former tutors implied, he doesn't believe that he is bound by the code of conduct that binds everyone else.

Why can't people see it?

I’m not convinced by the argument that there is still a lot of support for Johnson.

Nor am I very convinced of the argument that there is no one to replace him.

I think that there is still SOME support but not enough for them to be confident. I think that the May elections will be a catalyst.

The fact that there is no obvious successor has certainly been no hindrance in the past, so I think that argument doesn’t really hold water.

With regard to the reason.

I think that the general population who have no interest in politics - the vast majority - will see the issue as illegal parties.

Politicians and politically aware folk will understand that it is about democracy and misconduct in office. A much more serious issue that goes to the heart of our constitution.

That is such a well thought through article Maizie. Listening to David Wolfson when he made his speech reminded me that it wasn't always like this. Those chosen to govern us have been equally statesman-like in the past. It has never been a case of "they are all as bad as one another". It is easier for those in a weak government, given a huge majority by a minority of the people, to feel above the rules and invincable.

And Dickens I agree that loss of trust is the problem. As you say it affects any relationship, whether it's trust lost between partners or between the government and the country. In either case, recovery is sometimes impossible and sometimes, to continue, it needs a complete rebalance of the relationship.

WWM2

I’m not convinced by the argument that there is still a lot of support for Johnson.

I hope you are right, but I have a foreboding that there is still enough and that MPs are not yet at that point where they are willing to ditch him.

Nor am I very convinced of the argument that there is no one to replace him.

I agree. Even in his own party, whoever replaced him would certainly understand that they could not tread the same path as he has.

The reason why these people can't see it Dickens is because they have been told what think by The Daily Express, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Sun.

Years and years of reading the right-wing press is tantamount to brainwashing.

In Russia there are many people who totally believe Kremlin propaganda because they have only read state newspapers and watched state tv.

We need to wake up to the power of propaganda in our country.

Just to say thank you for your support volver and Callistemon21. Your interpretation of what I said was correct, and was echoed in what Andrew Rawnsley said in the article MaizieD quoted by Andrew Rawnsley:
‘To be fair to the Conservatives, some of them are greatly troubled that they are led by a rogue prime minister. The Tory ranks contain people with a moral compass who still attach importance to standards in public life.’

The most frustrating thing about Gransnet for me is that some posters think in a linear way. They therefore don’t recognise that a Labour supporter can acknowledge that some of the opposition, whether MPs or on Gransnet itself are not wholly bad, without compromising their own beliefs. DaisyAnne did give me a laugh though - and I won’t be sporting a blue rosette just yet!

You're welcome Casdon.

Am I supposed to come in at this point and thank those who broke up the mini pile-on and comment on those who chose not to support me? (Not, you understand, that I am one who sees this as a sport where cheerleaders add to a discussion)

Just how long do you want this to go on Casdon?

We need a post that appears from time to time saying "Is your post really necessary?"

Common courtesy never goes amiss DaisyAnne.

You're welcome, Casdon

There are decent politicians in all parties and, human nature being what it is, the opposite is true in politicians of all parties too.

Common but hardly courteous when you have to add the snide little personal attack, Casdon.

But back to the thread. There are decent politicians in all parties Callistomon. The thread is actually about Johnson. His party knew how he would behave, let alone how he has behaved but chose to support him well past the stage of "decency" despite the wreckage he leaves in his wake. I still think they will be remembered for taking far too long to show that decency - those that have it - because of their politics and the need to "win" being put well ahead of the country's well being.

Casdon

Just to say thank you for your support volver and Callistemon21. Your interpretation of what I said was correct, and was echoed in what Andrew Rawnsley said in the article MaizieD quoted by Andrew Rawnsley:
‘To be fair to the Conservatives, some of them are greatly troubled that they are led by a rogue prime minister. The Tory ranks contain people with a moral compass who still attach importance to standards in public life.’

The most frustrating thing about Gransnet for me is that some posters think in a linear way. They therefore don’t recognise that a Labour supporter can acknowledge that some of the opposition, whether MPs or on Gransnet itself are not wholly bad, without compromising their own beliefs. DaisyAnne did give me a laugh though - and I won’t be sporting a blue rosette just yet!

Good lord, it's taking sides time now is it?

Casdon. My thesis is that 'principled tories' have suppressed their principles for long enough to have voted for some appalling legislation, which includes legislation which diminishes the role of the Legislature to a point where Parliament struggles to hold the Executive to account or to properly scrutinise proposed legislation. (I do trust that you don't need the Separation of Powers and the meaning of Parliamentary Sovereignty explained to you) My conclusion is that they have put party before principle, held their noses and connived atvitvall. They could have stopped this degradation of the constitution at a much earlier stage, as Rawnsley says. (And I really didn't need a lecture on the whipping system)

At some time corruption and moves towards subverting democracy should be called out. That the supposedly 'principled' tory MPs are being finally shamed into action by Partygate is a stain on them. How much more destruction would they have tolerated if most of the public hadn't made it crystal clear that partygate was deeply offensive to them?

I’m not convinced by the argument that there is still a lot of support for Johnson.

Nor am I very convinced of the argument that there is no one to replace him. Whitewavemark2 Sun 24-Apr-22 16:07:33

There were some interesting comments from Ian Dunt, who was on Sunday evening's Sky Paper Review.

He suggested that it would be easier for the groups within the Tory party to get rid of Johnson if they chose to than it would have been in the past as they have more in common and can easily talk group to group. He reasoned that there is no longer the "Broad Church" in the party for which it was once well known.

He commented on the withdrawal of the whip from the 21 "rebels" in 2019. Many of these MPs did not stand in the subsequent election. A few stood under a label other than Conservative, and lost. Also those who stood and won seats for the first time were in the mold of Johnson. I thought it a useful reprise as it reminded me just how much Johnson has taken over and changed the Conservative party with few centre-right, One Nation Tories left.

He felt that they would have to look to the back benches for a new leader as those who are and have been so supportive of Johnson, which included his whole front bench, were so tainted by the scandals surounding him. He seemed about to mention a couple of names but was cut off by the news reader because of time and only mentioned Tom Tugendat.

Official Statistics
Weekly number of migrants detected in small boats - 18 to 24 April 2022
Published 25 April 2022

Figures speak for themselves seems to be working as a deterrent.

I find myself in the unpleasant situation of agreeing with Nigel Farage.

But former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage told GB News: There are some saying Rwanda is working, it's a success because virtually no migrants have come now for the last six or seven days. Believe you me, I know this subject.

That is nothing to do with the prospect of being shipped off to Rwanda. It's because there has been a persistent, strong, north-easterly wind in the English Channel. When it gets calm again, the boats will continue to come.

Time to go and do something else for a while, I think.

It's okay to agree with the fact Volver. More recognition of facts is good You still, I would guess, differ on the conclusion you draw from those facts.