Poor Nadine !

Awful woman

I’m a working class woman and I resent her attempt at claiming ‘poor kid made good’ credentials! She’s a perfect example of a class traitor

Seriously, she thought she’d joined the posh boys’ club. She hadn’t, and now she’s no longer useful to the posh boys she’s out.

My mid-Beds neighbours are hoping for an MP who is actually in the constituency or the HoC to represent them after the Goodbye and good riddance-election. What with her stint in the I'm a Celebrity jungle, book tours and other unavoidable absences they hardly see Nadine Dorries.
As for anyone expecting BJ to keep his word or reward loyalty, well, words fail me.

Silly infatuated Dorries is yet another victim of Johnson's lies and promises. Why did she think she was any different from his ex wives, mistresses, employers, colleagues? This is what Johnson does; he has no loyalty, no morals. More fool her for supporting him.

I read today that Johnson knew in February that her names was removed from the list. I guess that he forgot to mention it......

Callistemon21

It's starting to become meaningless.

Can we have an elected Second Chamber, please?

Yes please.

GrannyRose15

How would an elected second chamber be any better? We have already lost trust in one elected chamber. Having two which we have no trust in would only make matters worse.

But there is that.

Blossoming

I’m a working class woman and I resent her attempt at claiming ‘poor kid made good’ credentials! She’s a perfect example of a class traitor

Seriously, she thought she’d joined the posh boys’ club. She hadn’t, and now she’s no longer useful to the posh boys she’s out.

Oh dear me. Someone rises up and she's a traitor to the commie cause.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Damn autocorrect.

If I was so keen on becoming a peer I'd check out the process myself rather than trust other people to tell me and to do it in a timely way.

But she's so desperate and so credulous that she believed her hero and just let things slide.

A dumb and lazy person like this doesn't deserve a highly paid sinecure for life.

Apart from that, even if all had gone to plan, I doubt if she'd be the first person of "humble" origins to be given a seat in the HofL. Her a trailblazer......I just can't stop laughing!

Now Johnson claims Jenkin broke the rules. Is this deny, distract, diffuse, deride, deflect and distance?

Grantanow
Revenge?
And if rules were broken, why not face the consequences?

all.

(was replying to Grantanow )

It’s desperation, along with his submission to the Committee at 11.57 on Monday. And it’s irrelevant. Johnson is not being penalised for lockdown breaches, but for deliberately or recklessly misleading Parliament.

Siope

It’s desperation, along with his submission to the Committee at 11.57 on Monday. And it’s irrelevant. Johnson is not being penalised for lockdown breaches, but for deliberately or recklessly misleading Parliament.

Which he didn’t do and the committee knows he didn’t do.

How many MPs were misled by any of Boris Johnson’s statements. Please name one.

GrannyRose15

Siope

It’s desperation, along with his submission to the Committee at 11.57 on Monday. And it’s irrelevant. Johnson is not being penalised for lockdown breaches, but for deliberately or recklessly misleading Parliament.

Which he didn’t do and the committee knows he didn’t do.

Which he did do and the committee has written evidence from numerous sources to prove he did. You are deluding yourself GrannyRose15.

GrannyRose15

How many MPs were misled by any of Boris Johnson’s statements. Please name one.

Yu know, GrannyRose, you complain about not being able to have a serious discussion about different points of view and then you come up with this egregious nonsense.

Whether or not the PMs were misled (which I doubt that many were because they nearly all know that Johnson lies continually and fluently and has only a very distant acquaintance with the truth) but lying to Parliament is a breach of the Ministerial code and contemptuous of Parliamentary conventions.

Additionally, MP's lies are recorded in Hansard, which is a practically verbatim account of all parliamentary proceedings. Hansard is used extensively by historians, and others, and what MPs say in Parliament is taken to be the truth. That is why MPs who have told an untruth are asked to correct the record (Hansard). When MPs lie in Parliament they are not only misleading MPs, they are misleading voters, interested international observers , academic researchers and anyone else who expects to learn the truth from the parliamentary record.

If you think that lying to Parliament isn't important it really isn't worth engaging with you.

•MaisieD• and I thought we were doing so well.

I do not like the way a democratically elected leader has been drummed out of parliament. I do not think that those who sat in judgement on him were unbiased. I do not like the fact that there is no appeal against their findings. I think that all this business is a threat to our democracy.

I am concerned that in their loathing of one man parliamentarians have overstepped what is right and just.

If I resort to a little levity while trying to express my very deep concern then it is only to maintain my own sanity.

Dorries appears to be unretiring. twitter.com/nadinedorries/status/1669060242552811520?s=46&t=cR0Pa_B5bkzj2u6O2LXngQ and following tweets.

I am more confused than ever. It now seems that Bernard Jenkin also broke the rules over Covid and social gatherings. BJ has written to Harriet Harman to ask if she had checked on the people sitting in judgment. The letter is on the Guido Fawkes website. Crazy way to conduct an enquiry?

I do not like the way a democratically elected leader has been drummed out of parliament.

He was not drummed out. He resigned.

I do not think that those who sat in judgement on him were unbiased.

The committee has a majority of Tory MPs. Plus all they have done is made a recommendation. That would then go for a vote in the Commins where Johnson’s own party has a 60+ majority. Are they all biased?

I do not like the fact that there is no appeal against their findings.

But there is the opportunity to present submissions to be considered before the Committee’s recommendations are finalised. Johnson was given two weeks to do so, instead of which he resigned, and publicly attacked the probity of the Committee. He then entered a submission exactly 3 minutes before the deadline.

Had he not resigned, he would have had the opportunity to present his views to the Commons ahead of a free vote on the recommendations. Had that vote gone against him, he would have had the chance to persuade enough of his constituents not to sign a recall petition, thus keeping him as their MP. Had that failed, he could then have argued his case at a by-election, and if enough voters believed him, he’d have been re-elected.

That’s a fairly robust appeals process.

I think that all this business is a threat to our democracy.

On the contrary, upholding standards in Parliament and MPs at all ranks behaving in a way which ensures the electorate can trust them are underpinnings of democracy, as is holding those who breach our trust accountable.

ronib

I am more confused than ever. It now seems that Bernard Jenkin also broke the rules over Covid and social gatherings. BJ has written to Harriet Harman to ask if she had checked on the people sitting in judgment. The letter is on the Guido Fawkes website. Crazy way to conduct an enquiry?

I don’t think it does seem that ronib. It’s more a case of it seems that Boris Johnson is desperately trying to get off the hook and is lashing out with what appears to be little foundation against a member of his own party who was on the panel. The Guardian certainly puts a different spin on it to yours.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/14/boris-johnson-calls-for-tory-mp-on-privileges-committee-to-resign