pluk
TS Member
This.whole 'questionnaire under caution' thing is a bit odd, I've never heard of anything like it before.
- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks. - Thread starter Craig
- Start date
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
- Favourite Ride
- Fury 325
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
- Favourite Ride
- The Smiler
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
UK politics general discussion
This.whole 'questionnaire under caution' thing is a bit odd, I've never heard of anything like it before.
Matt N
TS Member
The Sue Gray report has arrived at Downing Street, and is being published today: https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sue-gray-report-partygate-downing-street-publication-day-boris-johnson-1649349
Matt N
TS Member
My apologies; I realised my mistake quickly and edited my post.
Benzin
TS Member
Bit of an oopsie by the Met then?
www.independent.co.uk
Regarding the actual support, from sounds of things it's not anything particularly damning (moreso than already should be). But when you look at the road that lead to this they wanted it quiet and buried.
Awful people in charge of this country. And the rest of the current government is full of snivelling yes men and women who'd break any law to have some form of power. And who all know if the PM goes so will they.
Legal action launched over Met’s ‘failure to adequately investigate’ Boris Johnson
Former senior Met officer Lord Paddick demands Met re-opens Partygate investigation or explains reasoning
www.independent.co.uk
Regarding the actual support, from sounds of things it's not anything particularly damning (moreso than already should be). But when you look at the road that lead to this they wanted it quiet and buried.
Awful people in charge of this country. And the rest of the current government is full of snivelling yes men and women who'd break any law to have some form of power. And who all know if the PM goes so will they.
Craig
TS Administrator
So having had a quick speed read through the report, it's pretty clear that the only thing high level officials were bothered about was being found out, not that what they were doing was wrong. Lots of talk about how things would look from a comms point of view rather than being concerned that what they were doing were wrong.
Multiple photos similar to the ones published yesterday are indeed included in the report, with it stating the PM was there for around half an hour or so. That really begs the question as to why the PM wasn't even questioned in terms of that event when he's clearly pictured participating.
The party in Johnson's flat after Dominic Cummings' departure was not fully investigated by Sue Grey as The Met started their investigation into events:
Multiple photos similar to the ones published yesterday are indeed included in the report, with it stating the PM was there for around half an hour or so. That really begs the question as to why the PM wasn't even questioned in terms of that event when he's clearly pictured participating.
The party in Johnson's flat after Dominic Cummings' departure was not fully investigated by Sue Grey as The Met started their investigation into events:
Dave
TS Founding Member
Yes it was, the thing was odd.
Matt N
TS Member
Interestingly, a Twitter poster has suggested that a Met Police source said that the reason the junior civil servants were fined and senior civil servants weren’t is because the senior civil servants did not answer the questionnaire, thus there was no evidence against them:
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it would make sense; I remember the leaked questionnaires stating that answers did not have to be given, but not giving answers may harm the accused’s defence.
Although if the above is true, it clearly didn’t harm the accused’s defence in this case.
Though I’d have thought that non-compliance with police procedure would incur penalties in itself… is it known whether the questionnaires were compulsory or not?
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but it would make sense; I remember the leaked questionnaires stating that answers did not have to be given, but not giving answers may harm the accused’s defence.
Although if the above is true, it clearly didn’t harm the accused’s defence in this case.
Though I’d have thought that non-compliance with police procedure would incur penalties in itself… is it known whether the questionnaires were compulsory or not?
Alsty
TS Member
Funny how the government have been against a windfall tax for weeks but have decided now, the day after the Sue Gray report comes out, is a good time to have one after all 
Indeed that does seem like a stragery, of course Labour can take the mantel saying that they pushed the idea (which they did).Funny how the government have been against a windfall tax for weeks but have decided now, the day after the Sue Gray report comes out, is a good time to have one after all
Matt N
TS Member
In an interesting development, Boris Johnson has announced that ministers will no longer be expected to automatically resign or be sacked for misbehaviour: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-code-conduct-resign-b2088965.html
Thameslink Rail
TS Member
I mean that's basically been the case for a few months now anyway they've just changed the rule instead of constantly ignoring it.
So his mates get the special treatment but the public don't? No surprise there.
Matt N
TS Member
It appears that the situation could be worsening for Boris Johnson, and a vote of confidence is likely to be on the horizon.
It is being reported by the Sunday Times that up to 67 letters of no confidence could have been sent to Graham Brady, the head of the 1922 Committee, and a confidence vote could be on the way as soon as next week: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-04...ce-vote-as-poll-signals-tory-wakefield-defeat
For some idea, 28 MPs have publicly confirmed that they have sent letters of no confidence, and 48 MPs have publicly expressed discontent with Johnson. The MPs who have expressed discontent include prominent Conservative MPs, such as Andrea Leadsom, whose opinion may sway a number of other MPs.
The threshold that triggers a confidence vote is 54 letters, or 15% of Conservative MPs.
It is likely that any update on this will have been delayed until after the Jubilee, and if the threshold has been hit, it is suggested that Graham Brady may even wait until after the by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton as he may not want to influence the result of the by-elections. It is predicted that Johnson could be dealt crushing blows at these by-elections, so MPs opposing him would be likely to support such a delay because any confidence vote would then hit Johnson at his most dangerous moment.
It is being reported by the Sunday Times that up to 67 letters of no confidence could have been sent to Graham Brady, the head of the 1922 Committee, and a confidence vote could be on the way as soon as next week: https://www.itv.com/news/2022-06-04...ce-vote-as-poll-signals-tory-wakefield-defeat
For some idea, 28 MPs have publicly confirmed that they have sent letters of no confidence, and 48 MPs have publicly expressed discontent with Johnson. The MPs who have expressed discontent include prominent Conservative MPs, such as Andrea Leadsom, whose opinion may sway a number of other MPs.
The threshold that triggers a confidence vote is 54 letters, or 15% of Conservative MPs.
It is likely that any update on this will have been delayed until after the Jubilee, and if the threshold has been hit, it is suggested that Graham Brady may even wait until after the by-elections in Wakefield and Tiverton as he may not want to influence the result of the by-elections. It is predicted that Johnson could be dealt crushing blows at these by-elections, so MPs opposing him would be likely to support such a delay because any confidence vote would then hit Johnson at his most dangerous moment.
Craig
TS Administrator
If the threshold has been reached, it's highly unlikely there would be any sort of delay to announcing that until after the by-elections. Parliament is in recess at the moment, and with Boris Johnson essentially on official engagements over this weekend, Graham Brady would no doubt use that as the reasoning for not speaking to the PM yet. But convention dictates that he should speak to him as soon as practicable if those letters have hit that magic number (in Theresa May's case, he waited for her to get back from abroad). There was talk of MPs holding off putting letters in pending the by-election results, but if reports are to be believed the numbers have been hit now
If they have the numbers, then Brady would advise Johnson and discuss when the vote should take place - usually the night before a public announcement. When Theresa May faced a no confidence vote in December 2018, the threshold being hit was announced just before 8am and the vote was held that same evening. I can't see there being much of a wait for a vote in this case either, which is why there's been reports of phone calls taking place to MPs in the past week or so - for one reason to get people to withdraw letters, another to try to preempt that vote and encourage people to vote for confidence in him. When the whole process is getting such heavy coverage in the media, there's little benefit to be gained in delaying the vote.
There's already far too much damaging stuff about him swirling around in the media, so my gut feeling would be that the "best" case option for him is to push for a vote as quickly as possible. The only good option for him is to have the vote, win and that protects him from a further challenge for 12 months. Of course, Theresa May only knows all too well that winning a confidence vote doesn't mean you stay in power. Her confidence vote which she won then progressed into a vote of no confidence motion laid in Parliament in January, and her subsequent resignation announcement in March - a mere 3 months after the 1922 committee vote.
This is a leader that's pretty much in terminal decline now, and my view that it's a case of when, rather than if he goes still stands. I can't see him leading the next election, it's just whether the Tories want to get rid and attempt to recover now, or get rid closer to the next election when the damage done could be far more substantial, but an option for a new leader becomes more obvious.
If they have the numbers, then Brady would advise Johnson and discuss when the vote should take place - usually the night before a public announcement. When Theresa May faced a no confidence vote in December 2018, the threshold being hit was announced just before 8am and the vote was held that same evening. I can't see there being much of a wait for a vote in this case either, which is why there's been reports of phone calls taking place to MPs in the past week or so - for one reason to get people to withdraw letters, another to try to preempt that vote and encourage people to vote for confidence in him. When the whole process is getting such heavy coverage in the media, there's little benefit to be gained in delaying the vote.
There's already far too much damaging stuff about him swirling around in the media, so my gut feeling would be that the "best" case option for him is to push for a vote as quickly as possible. The only good option for him is to have the vote, win and that protects him from a further challenge for 12 months. Of course, Theresa May only knows all too well that winning a confidence vote doesn't mean you stay in power. Her confidence vote which she won then progressed into a vote of no confidence motion laid in Parliament in January, and her subsequent resignation announcement in March - a mere 3 months after the 1922 committee vote.
This is a leader that's pretty much in terminal decline now, and my view that it's a case of when, rather than if he goes still stands. I can't see him leading the next election, it's just whether the Tories want to get rid and attempt to recover now, or get rid closer to the next election when the damage done could be far more substantial, but an option for a new leader becomes more obvious.
Dave
TS Founding Member
Indeed as Craig says Brady cannot delay the vote indefinitely.
The Tory party are mostly decided now that he needs to go but the various factions are unclear if their preferred replacement can gain power, that’s the only reason there hasn’t been a vote already.
Ironically the best case scenario for Labour is he wins the confidence vote but only by a small margin, that will demonstrate he has lost a lot of his MP’s, he will struggle to wrestle the factions together and effectively be impotent to make any major decisions, more scandals will emerge as the wounded civil servants who got fined start to leak and the party won’t be able to oust him without a rule change for 12 months.
The Tory party are mostly decided now that he needs to go but the various factions are unclear if their preferred replacement can gain power, that’s the only reason there hasn’t been a vote already.
Ironically the best case scenario for Labour is he wins the confidence vote but only by a small margin, that will demonstrate he has lost a lot of his MP’s, he will struggle to wrestle the factions together and effectively be impotent to make any major decisions, more scandals will emerge as the wounded civil servants who got fined start to leak and the party won’t be able to oust him without a rule change for 12 months.