Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)
Discussion
swisstoni said:
Finally found the BBC snippet I was looking for;
“Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Mr Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".
I personally can’t see how lying or not lying about No10 parties had any impact on the ‘proper functioning’ of parliament.
i think the ability to rely on what is said in parliament may support its proper functioning?“Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Mr Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".
I personally can’t see how lying or not lying about No10 parties had any impact on the ‘proper functioning’ of parliament.
pork911 said:
swisstoni said:
Finally found the BBC snippet I was looking for;
“Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Mr Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".
I personally can’t see how lying or not lying about No10 parties had any impact on the ‘proper functioning’ of parliament.
i think the ability to rely on what is said in parliament may support its proper functioning?“Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Mr Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".
I personally can’t see how lying or not lying about No10 parties had any impact on the ‘proper functioning’ of parliament.
I’m not sure anybody has relied on anything that was said in Parliament as the basis for their decisions, opinions and judgements since Ollie called em all a bunch of venal w
kers DeejRC said:
pork911 said:
swisstoni said:
Finally found the BBC snippet I was looking for;
“Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Mr Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".
I personally can’t see how lying or not lying about No10 parties had any impact on the ‘proper functioning’ of parliament.
i think the ability to rely on what is said in parliament may support its proper functioning?“Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Mr Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".
I personally can’t see how lying or not lying about No10 parties had any impact on the ‘proper functioning’ of parliament.
I’m not sure anybody has relied on anything that was said in Parliament as the basis for their decisions, opinions and judgements since Ollie called em all a bunch of venal w
kers pork911 said:
DeejRC said:
pork911 said:
swisstoni said:
Finally found the BBC snippet I was looking for;
“Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Mr Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".
I personally can’t see how lying or not lying about No10 parties had any impact on the ‘proper functioning’ of parliament.
i think the ability to rely on what is said in parliament may support its proper functioning?“Firstly, the committee would have to decide that Mr Johnson had not only misled Parliament but also that what he said had an impact on its "proper functioning". This would mean it was a "contempt".
I personally can’t see how lying or not lying about No10 parties had any impact on the ‘proper functioning’ of parliament.
I’m not sure anybody has relied on anything that was said in Parliament as the basis for their decisions, opinions and judgements since Ollie called em all a bunch of venal w
kers Anyway, to bring it back to Bojo…the reality is that it’s probably in nobody’s interest for there to be a by election. Except the Lib Dems, but nobody cares about them except Derek. They can get a potential 12months of 1 extra seat before losing it again at the GE.
A slap on the wrist, a bit of public censure and everybody can get back to carrying on as normal. To push this too hard just makes it too much of a gamble for either side to be comfortable with, in terms of ensuring the outcome is a gain for them. Neither side has that need of such a gamble at the moment.
DeejRC said:
Anyway, to bring it back to Bojo…the reality is that it’s probably in nobody’s interest for there to be a by election. Except the Lib Dems, but nobody cares about them except Derek. They can get a potential 12months of 1 extra seat before losing it again at the GE.
Uxbridge is a Con/Lab seat. The LDs only got 3,000 votes there in 2019 (and 1,800 in 2017). It only needs a 7.5% swing to go Labour, which is why there were mutterings about finding Boris a safer seat when he was PM. sim72 said:
DeejRC said:
Anyway, to bring it back to Bojo…the reality is that it’s probably in nobody’s interest for there to be a by election. Except the Lib Dems, but nobody cares about them except Derek. They can get a potential 12months of 1 extra seat before losing it again at the GE.
Uxbridge is a Con/Lab seat. The LDs only got 3,000 votes there in 2019 (and 1,800 in 2017). It only needs a 7.5% swing to go Labour, which is why there were mutterings about finding Boris a safer seat when he was PM. Not sure they’d have to bother next time.
swisstoni said:
sim72 said:
DeejRC said:
Anyway, to bring it back to Bojo…the reality is that it’s probably in nobody’s interest for there to be a by election. Except the Lib Dems, but nobody cares about them except Derek. They can get a potential 12months of 1 extra seat before losing it again at the GE.
Uxbridge is a Con/Lab seat. The LDs only got 3,000 votes there in 2019 (and 1,800 in 2017). It only needs a 7.5% swing to go Labour, which is why there were mutterings about finding Boris a safer seat when he was PM. Not sure they’d have to bother next time.
turbobloke said:
swisstoni said:
sim72 said:
DeejRC said:
Anyway, to bring it back to Bojo…the reality is that it’s probably in nobody’s interest for there to be a by election. Except the Lib Dems, but nobody cares about them except Derek. They can get a potential 12months of 1 extra seat before losing it again at the GE.
Uxbridge is a Con/Lab seat. The LDs only got 3,000 votes there in 2019 (and 1,800 in 2017). It only needs a 7.5% swing to go Labour, which is why there were mutterings about finding Boris a safer seat when he was PM. Not sure they’d have to bother next time.
One might then argue that the Tories won the most seats... and therefore the will of the people was observed...
but its just a rather meaningless phrase.
Frik said:
turbobloke said:
That's good news in one way, with no need for politicians conspiring to defeat the will of the people who elect them, in order to impose their own. The planets are in alignment.
Drivel. The "people" don't get to choose the available candidates. I feel there should be two candidates for each party/constituency. The party with the most votes overall wins the seat, and the candidate that gets most of those votes becomes MP.
That way individual MPs are not safe even if the seat is. Voters can still vote for their chosen party, but not vote for an individual they disagree with.
98elise said:
Frik said:
turbobloke said:
That's good news in one way, with no need for politicians conspiring to defeat the will of the people who elect them, in order to impose their own. The planets are in alignment.
Drivel. The "people" don't get to choose the available candidates. I feel there should be two candidates for each party/constituency. The party with the most votes overall wins the seat, and the candidate that gets most of those votes becomes MP.
That way individual MPs are not safe even if the seat is. Voters can still vote for their chosen party, but not vote for an individual they disagree with.
Blue62 said:
minimoog said:
The statement was 'much higher level than most'.
You're not very good at this.
It's straight out of the Paul Staines playbook, along with belittling the whole issue by suggesting it's about a 'bit of cake.' You're not very good at this.
I am not about to defend Blair, it's irrelevant in the context of Boris and what Boris has and continues, to do. He has lied his way through life, cheated loved ones and others, knowingly aided a henchman, hidden in a fridge, grabbed a journalists phone, the list is endless. Those who would prefer to deflect have simply signed up to the cult, in the same way that supporters of Trump continue to, but it does look as though they are running out of road.
u won't convince anyone who is so inclined, so there's little point, just be pleased that their numbers are diminishing now and that finally some semblance of competence, decency and honesty is slowly (very slowly) returning to British politics.
Red Devil said:
He's done worse than just grabbing a journalist's phone. Remember Darius Guppy? The mate whom BJ was happy to help back in 1990 in obtaining details of a NotW reporter's home address so that DG could try to get some heavies to beat him up. Ironic that BJ was a journalist at the time (Brussels correspondent of the Daily Telegraph). Even more ironic that he dismally failed to get hold of the desired information.
I listed the 'hiring of a henchman' in reference to the Guppy incident, but it's always worth reminding his cultist support of the standards our former PM lives by. It will be interesting to see what move he makes next, he's had a bad couple of weeks but like Trump, he needs to be in the public eye. Blue62 said:
Red Devil said:
He's done worse than just grabbing a journalist's phone. Remember Darius Guppy? The mate whom BJ was happy to help back in 1990 in obtaining details of a NotW reporter's home address so that DG could try to get some heavies to beat him up. Ironic that BJ was a journalist at the time (Brussels correspondent of the Daily Telegraph). Even more ironic that he dismally failed to get hold of the desired information.
I listed the 'hiring of a henchman' in reference to the Guppy incident, but it's always worth reminding his cultist support of the standards our former PM lives by. It will be interesting to see what move he makes next, he's had a bad couple of weeks but like Trump, he needs to be in the public eye. BJ is Poundland to Trump's Tesco.
He never managed to go as far as encouraging people to storm the Palace of Westminster...
Red Devil said:
He's done worse than just grabbing a journalist's phone. Remember Darius Guppy? The mate whom BJ was happy to help back in 1990 in obtaining details of a NotW reporter's home address so that DG could try to get some heavies to beat him up. Ironic that BJ was a journalist at the time (Brussels correspondent of the Daily Telegraph). Even more ironic that he dismally failed to get hold of the desired information.
Oh come on it was just some ribs and he never actually did anything did he?The fact he was happy to go along with it is completely lost on the sycophants.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff