National News Boris Johnson - Ousted Former PM

Fair points made on the radio yesterday:

If you agree to all of the below, then do you even have any principles?
1. I believed Boris Johnson when he said that there hadn't been any parties.
2. I believed Boris Johnson when he said he had been assured by colleagues that there hadn't been any parties.
3. I believed Boris Johnson when he said there may have been parties but no rules have been broken.
4. I believed Boris Johnson when it emerged that there had been parties, and rules may have been broken, but that he hadn't attended them.
5. I believed Boris Johnson when it emerged that there had been parties, that he had attended them, but he hadn't broken any rules.
6. I believed Boris Johnson when it emerged that there had been parties - which were definitely parties - which he did attend - but he didn't realise they were parties.
If all of these are true - you have completely changed your mind on what you believe him about between numbers 1 and 6. You know he has lied - and you continue to support him.
It is astonishing that his continued lying (not even just about this) doesn't matter to so many people.
Boris Johnson is not a football team. You do not have to give him your support just because you have supported him in the past.


All depends how far you are prepared to go for those playing for "your team" I guess 🤷‍♂️
 
  • React
Reactions: QR
Which of course cannot include covering up criminal activity.....

And will count for nought if others agree to testify under oath....and then it comes to light that his silence has been bought by an NDA

Precarious Martin.
Well an NDA wouldn't require explicit action to cover up criminal activity, it would just prevent public disclosure which is what PM will really be worried about.

It would count for nothing if this became a criminal matter but practically speaking this will never become a criminal matter.
 
Well an NDA wouldn't require explicit action to cover up criminal activity, it would just prevent public disclosure which is what PM will really be worried about.

It would count for nothing if this became a criminal matter but practically speaking this will never become a criminal matter.
He's going to be signing off an awful lot of NDAs at this rate, given the shenanigans at No10 since Bojo took office. I hope they are not using taxpayers money to fund it. Maybe his mate Lord Brownenvelope can see him right....again :unsure:
 
Good to see that Bojo's bridge/tunnel to Ireland idea 'only' cost £900k for the feasability study, and £1.1million for the "Union Connectivity Review". I'm sure it was very good value to confirm that spending £335billion wasn't worth it, even if they managed to avoid the massive munitions dump. No-one could've predicted that outcome.
 
Does anyone else think "crossing the floor" (irrespective of direction) should trigger an automatic by-election?

In principle yes, on the basis that that MP is no longer upholding the will of the constituents as voted for by those constituents

However in this case he defected precisely BECAUSE he was trying to improve his constituency (he was told if he didn’t defend the Pm his constituency wouldn’t get the high school he had campaigned for).

If I was a resident in that constituency I’d vote for him whatever party he was representing. Because I would be amazed if any reasonably minded (ok flaw here) constituent of any political leaning is opposed to a critical improvement in local education.
 
Does anyone else think "crossing the floor" (irrespective of direction) should trigger an automatic by-election?

In principle yes, on the basis that that MP is no longer upholding the will of the constituents as voted for by those constituents

However in this case he defected precisely BECAUSE he was trying to improve his constituency (he was told if he didn’t defend the Pm his constituency wouldn’t get the high school he had campaigned for).

If I was a resident in that constituency I’d vote for him whatever party he was representing. Because I would be amazed if any reasonably minded (ok flaw here) constituent of any political leaning is opposed to a critical improvement in local education.

Valid point for his constituents IF he was acting in THEIR interests. I doubt we will ever know.
 
Now there is an "alleged" secret recording of the Chief Whip............ and their tactics.

And several letters of NC have been withdrawn.

Messy.
 
Now there is an "alleged" secret recording of the Chief Whip............ and their tactics.

And several letters of NC have been withdrawn.

Messy.
Withdrawn so the line "having listened to the findings of Sue Gray and seen the evidence of the chief whips behaviour....." can be added, I should think.
[emoji1787]
 
Does anyone else think "crossing the floor" (irrespective of direction) should trigger an automatic by-election?

In principle yes, on the basis that that MP is no longer upholding the will of the constituents as voted for by those constituents

However in this case he defected precisely BECAUSE he was trying to improve his constituency (he was told if he didn’t defend the Pm his constituency wouldn’t get the high school he had campaigned for).

If I was a resident in that constituency I’d vote for him whatever party he was representing. Because I would be amazed if any reasonably minded (ok flaw here) constituent of any political leaning is opposed to a critical improvement in local education.
Surely the point of a by-election when someone defects is to allow the constituents to decide whether the switch is in their best interests or his
 
Back
Top Bottom