Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 01:36:37 PM

Login with username, password and session length

A serial lawbreaking liar - Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson scandal thread 2

Started by Fambo Number Mive, April 19, 2022, 01:46:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Fambo Number Mive

Guardian claims Tory MPs are planning "vote strikes" if the government doesn't do what it wants. Given the MPs who voted against Johnson are from all sides of the party, I doubt the government would lose its majority in many votes but it could be interesting.

jobotic

When the policies are abolishing tax for the rich, an end to environmental regulation and making refugees eat socialists they'll all fall into line.

Blumf

Quote from: Fambo Number Mive on June 08, 2022, 08:59:52 AMGuardian claims Tory MPs are planning "vote strikes" if the government doesn't do what it wants.

They'll be forming a union next, the bolshie layabouts!

Quote from: Fambo Number Mive on June 08, 2022, 08:59:52 AMGuardian claims Tory MPs are planning "vote strikes" if the government doesn't do what it wants. Given the MPs who voted against Johnson are from all sides of the party, I doubt the government would lose its majority in many votes but it could be interesting.

The Tories have a majority of 77, so it doesn't need all 148 rebels to defy the whip in order to seriously derail government business.

Blinder Data

Finkelstein in The Times saying Johnson might just survive (until the election at least). Plausible.

QuoteWhy we shouldn't write off Boris Johnson just yet

The cabinet backs him and the rebels are a disparate, rudderless faction — meaning the PM is stronger than you think


What happens now? Nothing. Nothing happens now. Weren't you following? It happened and now it has stopped happening. Boris Johnson was prime minister yesterday and the day before yesterday, and will now be prime minister tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.

I do not share the view that Johnson is weaker now than he was last week. What we gained was knowledge of the size of the opposition to him, which turned out to be substantial but not large enough to depose him. What he gained in return was a large measure of protection against forthcoming difficulties. I think the latter gain was greater than the former. In many ways, Johnson is now more secure in office than he was.

In December I pointed out how rare it was for prime ministers to be removed by their party while in office. It had never happened to someone who had recently won their first majority. I argued that removing a prime minister is harder than it sounds. This remains the case.

Just as there was last week, there are two big political problems ahead for the prime minister. There are by-elections he seems bound to lose badly, and there is a report from the Commons privileges committee, which could conclude that he lied to the House and suspend him from it. Either could, in normal circumstances, lead to his resignation. As a result of Monday's vote, the by-elections are substantially less likely to result in him being ousted. And even the privileges committee is mildly less likely to prompt that than it was.

There are consequences to trying to push out the prime minister and failing. His allies are right to say that a win is a win.

The rules now allow him a period of grace of a year before another ballot can be held. It is true that the backbench 1922 Committee can change its rules. But it should not be assumed that it will. And at the very least Johnson has added that obstacle to those that his opponents need to overcome.

There has been quite a lot of comment to the effect that, never mind the rules, he has to go. And, yes, I believe he should go. I wish he would go. I would have voted for him to go. But he doesn't have to go. That was the whole question MPs were being asked to determine on Monday. Did he have to go? And they decided that no, he did not.

I think the chances of him deciding that, to be a good chap, he really ought to go are minimal, don't you? That's not who he is, or how he thinks, or what he has built his political success upon. If he was that sort of person, Monday's vote wouldn't have been necessary since he would already have resigned.

And his support comes largely from those people who take a similarly tough view. They, on the whole, think it weak to resign because you just "ought" to, for everyone else's sake or because of some code of honour. That's one of the reasons they stuck with him. So they aren't likely to change their mind about it now.

If there had been a cabinet revolt on Monday, Johnson would probably have lost. But there wasn't. Why would there be one now?

There is, as I have argued before, a market failure in political coups. Each individual who rebels takes a risk, but they aren't able to guarantee they will receive the reward for that risk. So they show loyalty not to the prime minister but to themselves. That logic held on Monday and there is every reason to believe it will keep holding.

Lots of cabinet ministers want the prime minister's job and do not have much time for the incumbent. But they are hoping that somehow the job will come to them, rather than them having to go for it. And it will not.

Penny Mordaunt clearly weighed this all up on Monday. She seems to have concluded she couldn't act by herself and that even the act of trying to concert opposition would fail. That is more true now than it was then, isn't it? Anyone who wants it has to risk it, and the risk calculation doesn't seem a good one.

The only person who took a risk on Monday was Jeremy Hunt. And he, of course, had less to lose (although not nothing to lose; he showed courage). As a result the rebels have gained a leader, which is important. But Boris Johnson has gained the fact that the leader is Jeremy Hunt. Because for all his considerable capabilities, Hunt's appeal to Tories, and indeed to the country, is not universal.

A skilfully led rebel army could weaken the government, inflicting upon it defeat after defeat until it collapses, exhausted. This was done to Theresa May, but she did not have a majority. And the rebels shared a cause and an outlook. Johnson's opponents do not. This has been portrayed as a strength of the rebellion — that the loss of faith is so widespread. But it could also be seen as the weakness of the rebellion: it is too diverse, it lacks an ideological centre.

None of this matters, of course, if opposition to the prime minister turns out to be cumulative. Observers yesterday were noting that only 32 more MPs need desert the prime minister and he is out. But this depends on those who opposed him on Monday continuing to oppose him. And I am not sure they will.

In a year's time, the prime minister will indeed have added some further doubters. But the immediate cause of this rebellion — the disastrous and unethical parties — will have receded somewhat. Voters will have integrated them into their opinions of the government, but they may no longer be front of mind. MPs may not have it in the front of their minds either.

In its place might have come a new cause of discontent, but it might split the party differently, reuniting the prime minister with some of the rebels even as he loses others. The issue of lockdown parties united Jeremy Hunt and Steve Baker. The next issue may not.

And there will be an election coming. In a year's time Downing Street might plausibly start to argue it is too late to change. MPs may conclude it is too late in the cycle to start making trouble.

Any leader with so many internal opponents is in trouble. So, of course, Johnson is in trouble. He's been in trouble for ages. And in the end the trouble might get him. But for now Boris Johnson isn't toast, or over, or a dead man walking. He's prime minister. Just as he was last week and just as he will be next week.

TrenterPercenter

I find it hard to believe that this really is as Davis says an unorganised coup.  It's just a good coup (take note chicken coupers).

There are some issues with having such a majority without a clear consensus on direction, people keep talking about all these hard right policies that all the tories love but that isn't how it works the "red wall" has significantly different interests from the Mayfair set, brexit and immigration issues were the scapegoat catch all that could straddle that devide but now it is "done" the faults lines re-emerge.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Blinder Data on June 08, 2022, 10:13:55 AMFinkelstein in The Times saying Johnson might just survive (until the election at least). Plausible.

Good best he stays for as long as possible.  I don't think this will be the case though.

Quote from: Blinder Data on June 08, 2022, 10:13:55 AMFinkelstein in The Times saying Johnson might just survive (until the election at least). Plausible.

This is plausible, but entirely relies on him making it through the next three years without getting embroiled in further scandals, something which doesn't feel particularly likely.

shoulders

Quote from: Huxleys Babkins on June 08, 2022, 10:11:07 AMThe Tories have a majority of 77, so it doesn't need all 148 rebels to defy the whip in order to seriously derail government business.

But they are only rebelling against his leadership, not the actual agenda and bills of the government. Not sure why people keep conflating that. It is one thing to say you haven't got confidence in the leader at one snapshot of time, another to back that up by concertedly refusing to back any of the existing program in one vote after another spanning years.

idunnosomename

Quote from: Blinder Data on June 08, 2022, 10:13:55 AMFinkelstein in The Times saying Johnson might just survive (until the election at least). Plausible.

its all just a bit of panto to cunts like this. Tory lord Danny doesnt give a fuck about the damage legend bozza's government has done to this country. Just as long as hes still an important wealthy person and the tories are in power

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: shoulders on June 08, 2022, 10:38:02 AMBut they are only rebelling against his leadership, not the actual agenda and bills of the government. Not sure why people keep conflating that. It is one thing to say you haven't got confidence in the leader at one snapshot of time, another to back that up by concertedly refusing to back any of the existing program in one vote after another spanning years.

They will vote on the basis of what is most expedient to the electorate in their constituency they serve.  Of course a VONC is a lack of faith in the party leader to deliver for their constituents and country, it is a big thing.  It isn't about ending Johnson or the Tories it is absolutely about preserving them.

I cannot see anyone conflating anything, having 40% of your own MPs vote against you is very bad "by all historical precedence" so I'm not sure why this is such an issue and why you seemingly want to make out people are saying anything ultimately other than this.

Quote from: shoulders on June 08, 2022, 10:38:02 AMBut they are only rebelling against his leadership, not the actual agenda and bills of the government. Not sure why people keep conflating that. It is one thing to say you haven't got confidence in the leader at one snapshot of time, another to back that up by concertedly refusing to back any of the existing program in one vote after another spanning years.

That's not entirely true. We've already seen backbench rebellions that have been warded off with U-turns; the school meals, the Huawei ban, etc. Whilst I don't expect to see much rebellion to key manifesto pledges (unless rebels see them being particularly unpopular in their constituencies), reactive legislation and opposition motions will be another matter altogether.

gilbertharding


Replies From View


Endicott

That's Gary Lineker just after Gazza got booked in the England game. Gazza was playing a blinder but the booking meant he would miss the next game, which I think that would have been a final (can't remember) although in the end England lost anyway. But anyway the booking made Gazza very sad, Lineker's look back to the bench there basically saying he though Gazza might have a breakdown.

I've got no fucking idea how that relates to Boris Johnson.

Martin Van Buren Stan

Quote from: Endicott on June 08, 2022, 05:26:17 PMThat's Gary Lineker just after Gazza got booked in the England game. Gazza was playing a blinder but the booking meant he would miss the next game, which I think that would have been a final (can't remember) although in the end England lost anyway. But anyway the booking made Gazza very sad, Lineker's look back to the bench there basically saying he though Gazza might have a breakdown.

I've got no fucking idea how that relates to Boris Johnson.

Implying that he's got away with it this time but ultimately is finished?

Endicott

Implying Johnson has anything in common with '96 era Gascoigne is completely insane. Maybe there's an angle I'm not seeing, or maybe that was gh's original point.

imitationleather


notjosh

Quote from: Endicott on June 08, 2022, 05:26:17 PMI've got no fucking idea how that relates to Boris Johnson.

Lineker's mime to the bench was: 'have a word with him'.

The subtext was: 'this cunt's about to absolutely fucking lose it'.

notjosh



Endicott


gilbertharding

Quote from: Endicott on June 08, 2022, 05:26:17 PMThat's Gary Lineker just after Gazza got booked in the England game. Gazza was playing a blinder but the booking meant he would miss the next game, which I think that would have been a final (can't remember) although in the end England lost anyway. But anyway the booking made Gazza very sad, Lineker's look back to the bench there basically saying he though Gazza might have a breakdown.

I've got no fucking idea how that relates to Boris Johnson.

The account in question deals in amusing lookalikes (although someone else concocted this image, apparently), so I don't think it's much deeper than that. I just found the image amusing.

gilbertharding

Quote from: Endicott on June 08, 2022, 05:38:59 PMImplying Johnson has anything in common with '96 era Gascoigne is completely insane. Maybe there's an angle I'm not seeing, or maybe that was gh's original point.

It's purely the visual reflection, don't worry about it. In different ways both Johnson and Gascoigne are 'daft as a brush' too, I guess.

Endicott

Cheers @gilbertharding . Can't remember why I got worked up over a meme anyway, it's been a
 long day.

Fambo Number Mive

James O'Brien has compared Boris Johnson to a 'screaming, yoghurt-smeared toddler'.

How can Johnson stay PM after that?

"There's a lot of yogurt, and a lot of smearing"


Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse


jobotic


Fambo Number Mive

Imagine a universe where Corbyn won and people like O'Brien would have much less to complain about. They'd still be screaming while smeared with yogurt though.


Fambo Number Mive

Quote from: Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse on June 09, 2022, 10:00:08 AMUnfair to toddlers isn't it

Exactly, no toddler has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands through a pathetic pandemic response and only caring about the wealthy.

I wonder if Johnson poos and wees himself as much as a toddler.