Have to say I think that Observer article is unfair.
Did/does Boris have faults? Of course he does. Does he regularly do things that suit himself, rather than anyone else? Of course he does.
But he brought results. Winning elections. Getting Brexit through the hopeless logjam left by May.
A politician stronger on ideas than carrying them through. Flawed. But effective in foreign policy. Provided effective leadership during the pandemic-yes, mistakes were made, particularly at the beginning and the end. There was some "do as I say, not as I do" stuff. Like that doesn't happen every single time.
But the portrayal in that article of him being removed because of Partygate is nonsense. Let's not forget-he has been replaced by someone just as guilty. Mistakes under his watch happened-but show me 1 of his personally (as opposed to collective decisions) that matched "eat out to help out"?
Don't like the man. Never have. Never will. But he was voted in for a 5-year-term in 2019. On a manifesto that I hated. But that he largely stuck to. Hated for delivering Brexit-that the electorate voted for. Removed as PM without an election, for outrage in relation to an MP still sitting as one, with no suspension.
Removed as MP for allegedly lying to the House. Something every single PM in my lifetime has done. Thatcher and her case against the Miners? Blair and his "weapons of mass destruction"?
I don't want PMs and MPs removed because someone else doesn't like them. I don't want them removed because I don't like them.
I want them removed at the ballot box. Democratically.
Backing for Boris Johnson evaporates as Tory mutiny falls flat Former PM unlikely to seek a new seat
. His anger was compounded when it emerged some of his nominations for peerages had been dropped.
We can reveal that:
• Allies of Johnson said he felt “helpless” and had admitted privately “weeks ago” that he was “probably going to jack it in”.
• He was on a flight to Cairo when he was informed by the committee he had been found in contempt of parliament over partygate.
• Members of the committee were said to have been discussing a 20-day suspension before Johnson resigned.
• Extra security has been implemented to protect the members since Johnson’s resignation statement attacked them.
• Johnson, on being told that the government would not whip Tory MPs to vote against the sanction, said: “I’m f***ed.”
• David Cameron joked with friends that he had contributed to Johnson’s downfall by introducing legislation making it easier to recall MPs and force by-elections.
• The three by-elections are likely to be held as soon as possible, with the process starting as soon as Monday.
Although he failed to whip up a civil war, Johnson’s allies made clear their fury with Sunak. They accused the prime minister of being a “dishonourable swindler”, saying he had broken a promise to push through the entire list of honours — claims dismissed as “lies” by Downing Street.
In response to the allegation that Sunak intervened to remove Johnson’s allies from the peerage list, the government took the highly unusual step of declassifying the final list that had been approved by Holac.
It showed that the commission had not approved peerages for Dorries, Adams or Sharma, meaning they were not submitted to Sunak and were therefore not sent on by him to King for formal approval.
Speculation that Johnson was planning to stand in Dorries’s safe Mid Bedfordshire seat appears unfounded, but allies did not rule out a return to politics.
1 further point in relation to Boris/this Government.
Nadine Dorries denied a peerage because Sunak doesn't want a by-election.
Boris resigns because he was facing a forced by-election. Not because of the Committee decision. The next step is a vote in the Commons. The Tories have a Majority, and could vote for a 9-day or less suspension, thus avoiding a by-election. But Boris clearly knew that the Tories were not going to use their Majority in this way.
Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound 🚨The secret meeting which put Sunak and Boris at war again 🚨 Why the privileges committee really turned on Johnson 🚨 Why Nadine Dorries didn't get her peerage 🚨 Who is Captain Scarlet? YOUR DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO THE LATEST TORY PSYCHODRAMA IS HERE
Chris @chrisbrighton10 · 25m Just read it . Very good Martin Dean @MartinDDean · 23m A good read. Would be justice if GB 'News' now dropped Nads Most red wall voters more worried about gas bills, jobs and mortgages than Brexit now
If anyone believes that was not politically motivated, with the unseen hand of Rishi guiding it, then they also believe the word gullible is not in the dictionary.
Firstly, HOLAC has previous with Boris. Big battle over whether Cruddas should be allowed to be given a peerage.
Boris had about 50 people in his Honours list. Including 10 MPs. All accepted except for the 3 MPs that would have triggered by-elections. So-Damehoods and Knighthoods all round. But the 3 to be given Peerages were ruled "not fit and proper".
Terrible. Partisan decision. With the interests of Rishi Sunak written in foot high capital letters.
Have to say I think that Observer article is unfair.
Did/does Boris have faults? Of course he does. Does he regularly do things that suit himself, rather than anyone else? Of course he does.
You wont get an argument from me on that.
But he brought results. Winning elections. Getting Brexit through the hopeless logjam left by May.
There are question marks over getting Brexit through. The logjam was maybe due to divisions in the Tory Party, rather than Theresa May. There is no doubt in my mind that Theresa Mays Backstop, was far better than his Protocol. He screwed the Unionists over in NI. His lies may lead to a break up of the UK, in the longer term. He could have got a much better Brexit.
A politician stronger on ideas than carrying them through. Flawed. But effective in foreign policy. Provided effective leadership during the pandemic-yes, mistakes were made, particularly at the beginning and the end. There was some "do as I say, not as I do" stuff. Like that doesn't happen every single time.
Some terrible mistakes were made.
But the portrayal in that article of him being removed because of Partygate is nonsense. Let's not forget-he has been replaced by someone just as guilty. Mistakes under his watch happened-but show me 1 of his personally (as opposed to collective decisions) that matched "eat out to help out"?
He was removed because the men in grey suits wouldnt put up with him any more. There is a wide choice of shortcomings that could be blamed, but I dont think it is possible to point to one particular incident. Although the Chris Pincher fiasco may have been the straw.
Don't like the man. Never have. Never will.
Cant disagree.
But he was voted in for a 5-year-term in 2019.
Always subject to performance. Liz Truss lasted 45 days. Although I appreciate that she didnt get there as a result of a general election. I suppose that you could argue that in the general election, people voted for their local MPs, which resulted in Boris becoming PM. It would be easier to argue that people voted for Boris, if we had a Presidential system, and Boris was President.
On a manifesto that I hated. But that he largely stuck to.
Not sure, Social Care, new hospitals etc.
Hated for delivering Brexit-that the electorate voted for.
Not necessarily the Brexit that was voted for. Not sure it has been delivered, there doesnt seem to be any hope of Stormont getting up and running anytime soon.
Removed as PM without an election,
He resigned.
for outrage in relation to an MP still sitting as one, with no suspension.
He had plenty of time to rectify this before resigning, but I agree the fact that nothing has happened since is not acceptable.
Removed as MP for allegedly lying to the House.
He resigned again.
Something every single PM in my lifetime has done. Thatcher and her case against the Miners? Blair and his "weapons of mass destruction"?
Two wrongs dont make a right. You surely cant be arguing that because PMs have lied before, that he has the right to lie to his hearts content. He took lying to an extraordinary level.
I don't want PMs and MPs removed because someone else doesn't like them. I don't want them removed because I don't like them.
I want them removed at the ballot box. Democratically.
That would mean that irrespective of their conduct they would remain in place until a general election was due.
Not "irrespective of conduct". But also not removed because men in grey suits countermand the electorate.
We are left with a new PM who has been fined for exactly the same Partying.
And I look forward to Sunak telling the House that he had no hand in refusing those 3 peerages. The names were leaked months ago.
Is anyone really asking me to believe that Dorries and Sharma are not fit and proper people to be in the House of Lords, but at the same time approving "Dame" Priti Patel and "Sir" Jacob Rees-Mogg?
The only difference I can see is avoiding by-elections.
PS-I don't want a rule where someone "remains in place until a general election is due"
I do want a rule where, if the ruling party chooses to change their leader (as opposed to one caused by unavoidable circumstance), then they have to call a general election.
If anyone believes that was not politically motivated, with the unseen hand of Rishi guiding it, then they also believe the word gullible is not in the dictionary.
Firstly, HOLAC has previous with Boris. Big battle over whether Cruddas should be allowed to be given a peerage.
Boris had about 50 people in his Honours list. Including 10 MPs. All accepted except for the 3 MPs that would have triggered by-elections. So-Damehoods and Knighthoods all round. But the 3 to be given Peerages were ruled "not fit and proper".
Terrible. Partisan decision. With the interests of Rishi Sunak written in foot high capital letters.
Boris Johnson goes down swinging: ‘These people are only in parliament because of me’ Just how did a polite meeting with the PM over honours descend into chaos and lead to Boris Johnson’s dramatic resignation?
It was the meeting Downing Street said would not happen and this weekend they may wish it hadn’t. But when Boris Johnson met Rishi Sunak in the prime minister’s House of Commons office a week last Friday, he claimed to have come in peace.
Johnson urged Sunak to approve his resignation honours list. In return he would bury the hatchet and campaign hard for the Conservatives in the “red wall” seats at the next election.
What was said in the meeting and what was subsequently understood by both sides was very different and has this weekend unleashed civil war, not peace. It led directly to Johnson’s decision to resign as an MP yesterday evening, just hours after his close ally Nadine Dorries also jumped ship having learned she was not getting a peerage, leaving Sunak with the headache of by-elections the Tories might well now lose. The MP Nigel Adams, another Johnson loyalist, resigned on Saturday.
Johnson’s allies this weekend directly accused the prime minister of “deceit” and of tacitly encouraging the privileges committee to find him in contempt of parliament for lying to MPs about lockdown parties — the immediate cause of his resignation. They claim Sunak removed several of Johnson’s nominees for honours. Both of these claims are “categorically untrue”, according to No 10, which instead claims Johnson misunderstood the process of awarding peerages and is master of his own demise.
This is more than just another episode in the post-Brexit Tory psychodrama. It is also a story of human ego and hurt, but one that has the heat to combust the Tories’ slender hopes of victory in 2024. What remains unclear is whether these are the last bellowings of a political mastodon whose time has passed, or the start of a campaign of attacks that will end up destroying Sunak as well.
Johnson had been pressing for an audience with the prime minister for some time, but two weeks ago Downing Street denied one would take place. It was only arranged on the morning of June 2. The two men met, with one of Sunak’s political aides watching, at 4.30pm that day.
The meeting lasted around 45 minutes. For the first 25 minutes it was cordial and productive. Sunak was keen to pick Johnson’s brain about political strategy and the two discussed the best ways of taking the fight to Keir Starmer and Labour. Those involved in planning the election campaign, such as Isaac Levido, mastermind of the 2019 landslide, were also keen that Johnson’s skills be harnessed. “Boris made some bridge-building efforts,” an ally said. “He wants to win the next election. He wants to beat Starmer. He basically offered to put the leadership question off the table.”
Then Johnson raised the issue of peerages and the atmosphere chilled. No 10 had made clear to Johnson in advance that Sunak did not want to discuss honours, a point also made publicly when news of a possible meeting first emerged. “I don’t want to talk about that,” Sunak said.
“We must talk about it,” Johnson replied. He proceeded to press for assurances that MPs who had been submitted for peerages — Nadine Dorries, Alok Sharma and Nigel Adams — could wait and join the Lords later, noting how undesirable by-elections would be now. The No 10 claim is that Sunak said it was “their decision” whether to go or not.
What seems to have transpired is Sunak signalled he would approve the list put in front of him by officials. To the prime minister, this meant he would leave the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) to vet the list and then nod it through without intervention. Johnson’s camp say he took that to mean Sunak would sign off on his original list. The PM was, they claim, “Sphinx-like, not saying much, not giving much away.”
After the meeting with Sunak, Johnson messaged Nadine Dorries to say: “Just finished the meeting with Rishi. List being published imminently. You’re on it.” When it finally dropped on Friday, it was shorn of peerages for Dorries, Adams and Sharma, as well as gongs for two Tory donors, David Ross and Stuart Marks.
A Johnson ally accused Sunak of “a sleight of hand we regard as deceitful”, accusing him of being “clever-clever” and misreading the politics. “He thinks he’s being very clever when he’s being very stupid. He’s like a **** batsman who completely misreads the delivery.” Another accused Sunak of sophistry and speaking in tongues.
The problem for Johnson is that the only person taking notes was the Sunak aide. In this account, Sunak said to Johnson: “I don’t want you to leave this room thinking I have made you a promise as that will be a problem in our relationship going forward.”
This weekend, a Downing Street source said: “The former prime minister raised the matter of peerages, to which the current prime minister made clear he would follow precedent and not interfere with the process. Any suggestions of promises made or guarantees given are categorically untrue.”
Another added: “If anyone is taken off the list by Downing Street, Holac has to declare that. They haven’t. There was no intervention by the PM at all.”
Dorries, Sharma and Adams were removed by Holac because, under the rules, for them to remain on Johnson’s list they would have had to have resigned as MPs within six months. None of them signalled to Holac they would do so. That left them with only one alternative: that Sunak would, at a later date and in his own name, formally nominate them for peerages. He was not prepared to do so.
This technical process appears to have been lost on Johnson and his nominees, who were under the mistaken belief they could be automatically re-vetted every six months without needing to be renominated as long as they announced they were standing down before the election.
Both Dorries and Sharma sought to get clarification from No 10 and Holac. “That information was deliberately withheld,” said one of the would-be peers. “If anyone had said to us that we needed to stand down to be on the list, that is what we would have done. They withheld the process to stop by-elections and look what has happened. I think there was something much more devious and sinister about it. They want Boris and his allies out of Westminster.”
Dorries first got wind that there might be a problem around 7pm on Thursday, when a journalist contacted her having been tipped off by someone in No 10. In conversations with a senior minister on Friday morning, she is understood to have repeatedly stated that Johnson had been given personal assurances that she could be re-vetted and nominated at a later date. She was informed he was in no position to be giving her personal assurances, and that she would have needed to have either resigned already, or have notified Holac of her intention to do so.
Dorries then asked whether it was possible for her to be put back on the list if she resigned that day. The answer was no. She then asked whether Sunak would submit her name for a peerage at the next election in 2024. She was told he would not be making personal assurances to anyone. She resigned hours later.
In Boris World, Sunak misled Johnson and the peers were the sacrificial lambs.
What turned this episode from a major blow-up into a total meltdown in relations was the privileges committee, which has been investigating whether Johnson lied to MPs about partygate.
At noon on Thursday, Johnson was on a plane to Cairo to give a speech when he received an email from the committee that included a letter from chairwoman Harriet Harman saying he had been found guilty of deliberate contempt of parliament.
Johnson erupted with rage as he and an aide read the email. The MPs’ conclusions were “absolutely extreme beyond any expectation”.
When a hard copy of the report was handed to Lord Pannick, Johnson’s lawyer, on Thursday afternoon, they could see it found that not only had he made recklessly inaccurate statements, he had deliberately lied to MPs. What’s more, the report concluded that in defending himself to the committee, Johnson had made further inaccurate claims under oath, themselves a contempt of parliament.
Johnson, believing the report to be “nakedly political and transparently biased”, turned to an aide and said: “This just confirms all our worst suspicions. It’s a total stitch-up and they’re not even bothering to hide it.”
A source close to him said: “They are effectively claiming to have gone back in time and put themselves inside his own brain and claimed with 100 per cent certainty that they know what he was thinking, when there was not one email or WhatsApp showing that he set out to lie.”
Johnson was particularly shocked because his team had, until around two weeks ago, been assured by Tory whips that MPs on the committee, which has a Conservative majority, were leaning towards a suspension of less than ten days — the threshold after which there can be a recall vote in an MP’s seat, which can force a by-election.
Aides say that back channels went quiet a fortnight ago as Johnson and No 10 fell out over whether to redact WhatsApp messages being sent to the Covid inquiry, and the belief in Team Boris that ministers were behind a decision to send details from Johnson’s prime ministerial appointments diary to the police amid claims that it might provide evidence of further lockdown breaches.
“It looks very much like No 10 tipped the Tories on the committee the wink that they could throw the book at Boris,” a Johnson ally said. “They think they can only trust him if they kill him — but he’s like Captain Scarlet: he just regenerates. They’ve made a serious mistake. He speaks and people listen — and he’ll be saying a lot in the weeks to come.”
In essence, Johnson’s team believe that Sunak could have saved him and chose not to, and that that was a deliberate choice.
Sunak’s allies say it would have been completely inappropriate to intervene, either to lean on the privileges committee to save him, or to intervene to make changes to the list of peerages. “Whatever the PM does, he follows the procedure,” a Sunak aide said.
What is clear is that the privileges committee changed its mind in the last fortnight — but not for the reason the Johnsonites think. Sources close to the inquiry say the evidence submitted to the police, which was also sent to the MPs, tipped the balance in favour of a suspension of more than ten days. It is understood the MPs are now contemplating 20 days, although Johnson was told only that it would “significantly exceed” ten.
The clincher — and the reason Johnson has been found guilty of the new contempt — was that the evidence implied potential rule-breaking had extended to Chequers. “He didn’t restrict himself to denying there were parties in Downing Street,” a source said. “He was emphatic about the fact there was nothing at any stage in any venue.”
The committee is also said to have become increasingly irritated by the “belligerence” of Johnson’s lawyers. “He did everything within his power to annoy [the committee],” a source said. “They were not necessarily training their sights on his head. They were up for some sort of compromise.”
Johnson’s woes were compounded when it was made clear to him in recent days that the government would not whip Tory MPs to vote down the committee’s recommended sanctions. Johnson is said to have responded: “I’m f***ed.”
Furious at his treatment by the privileges committee and angry about what had happened to Dorries, he decided to quit the Commons, denying MPs the opportunity to kick him out. He privately expressed his anger at the prospect of dozens of Tory MPs voting in favour of the suspension: “Don’t these people realise they are only in parliament because of me?”
Johnson’s resignation letter was blistering, condemning the privileges committee and Sunak’s drift away from what he regards as properly Conservative policies in equal measure. Dorries had quit a few hours earlier. One friend said: “They’ve done a Thelma and Louise.”
Johnson allies believe this is all part of a concerted plot to drive him and his closest allies out of public life. One Tory grandee said: “He even sent one of his henchmen to Priti Patel to urge her to stand as London mayor. She was told if she didn’t win, she would get a peerage. By all accounts she was furious and saw it as part of an effort to get rid of her — but she has no intention of going anywhere.”
Recent visitors to Johnson’s office, at Millbank Tower in London, have found the former prime minister to be lacking some of his usual ebullience, a man ground down by having to spend a large amount of his time with lawyers refighting battles already fought in Downing Street. While there was an element of fury to his decision, there was also weariness.
Johnson regularly voices to friends and visitors his belief that what he perceives as a political and civil service establishment “is truly out to stop Brexit and wants me out of the way”. He believes that Sunak, along with Dominic Cummings, former aide Dougie Smith and senior civil servants, all conspired to force him from Downing Street over the partygate claims, which he still regards privately as “complete ****”.
One close ally said: “When you feel like everyone is against you and you’re facing a kangaroo court, that is going to get you down. I think he has felt a bit helpless. It’s got him very down. That’s why he has thrown in the towel.”
In quieter moments, Johnson acknowledges mistakes about some of the handling of events in No 10, but not that he was to blame for the end of his premiership. When an MP recently put to him that the privileges committee had been created with his approval, Johnson claimed he was in India at the time and distracted. He also suggested that he had left Chris Heaton-Harris, his former chief whip, to handle the details.
A senior government source added: “Three courts decide the fate of a politician. There is the House, there is the privileges committee and there is the electorate — and Boris has decided that he doesn’t want to face any of them.”
Sunak was chairing a cabinet committee meeting on small boats when Johnson resigned. Aides did not interrupt proceedings, but told him as he left the cabinet room. “He was disappointed in one way, sanguine in another,” one source said.
Johnson’s Tory rivals rejoiced. George Osborne tweeted: “What a lovely evening.” David Cameron joked with friends: “Who knew my recall law was so powerful, everyone called it feeble at the time.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was at a dinner in Derby celebrating Dame Margaret Beckett’s 40 years as an MP when it was announced from the stage Johnson had resigned. “There was a lot of cheering,” a source said. “Keir just smiled.”
Labour is now expected to prioritise fighting the by-election in Johnson’s seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which has never been held by any other party other than the Tories, over Dorries’ former berth, Mid Bedfordshire, which has been Tory since 1931. A Whitehall source said: “A big problem for Sunak is that these are precisely the Cameron coalition seats he promised he would win. One is a heartland rural Tory seat, the other is a suburban one. Both heavily Leave-voting.”
It is understood that the by-elections are likely to be held as soon as possible, with the writs moved as soon as Monday. An emergency meeting attended by senior party figures was held in Downing Street on Friday night to discuss the vacancies. Another is imminent.
The privileges committee, which says Johnson has “impugned the integrity” of the Commons, will now meet on Monday to complete its inquiry. It is then expected to publish its findings, although it is unclear, given Johnson’s resignation, whether it will now recommend any sanction. Having lost the power to suspend Johnson, the committee could recommend the only other meaningful sanction left open to it: denying him privileged access to parliament, as is normally afforded to ex-MPs. That would mean stripping him of his pass.
Johnson’s allies, who have also called the committee a “kangaroo court” and a “witch-hunt”, could also face censure. The report will warn explicitly that any further attempts to impugn the committee could see the offending MPs face contempt proceedings of their own. Members of the committee have been given extra security because of Johnson’s attacks.
Enemies of Johnson will see a parallel morality play in the conjunction of events on both sides of the Atlantic, with Johnson announcing his departure from parliament on the same day as Donald Trump was indicted for hoarding classified documents. The difference is that Trump could still win election from jail, whereas Johnson cannot be prime minister without a seat.
Johnson’s team have left open his running again, but one ally said: “He won’t be standing for election any time soon.” Johnson and Dorries had a conversation on Thursday about whether he should seek to stand in her seat and she said: “Don’t put yourself through it.” Johnson replied: “F***ing ****, I won’t.”
What is certain is that he won’t go quietly. Plans for more journalism and a TV show are in the works and he will continue to make millions from paid speeches. A memoir is already well advanced. Those who have seen what he has written say it will be a blockbuster book. “The man can turn a phrase,” a publishing source said.
Some still hope that a rapprochement can be found between Johnson and Sunak. A cabinet minister close to Johnson said: “He will cause Labour as much trouble as the Tories. If he says that Labour is going to betray Brexit voters at the general election, a lot of them will listen to him.”
What is clear, from the briefing and counter-briefing, is that the two most prominent people in the Tory party are daggers drawn. “He’ll be back — but from the sidelines,” a close friend of Johnson said. “He is making lots of money. He needs money. He likes money. I think he’ll use the money to try to buy back all the people he lost in his life.”
Whether Rishi Sunak likes it or not, Boris Johnson is still a factor in his life.
Those 3 articles present a far more accurate position of the reality.
Sunak was arm-twisting the Committee to recommend less than 10 days. Then Boris disagreed with Sunak in relation to handing over information. As in, for whatever reason, Boris wanted to be more honest than Sunak.
So Sunak stabbed him in the back. Both on the suspension and the peerages. I am fascinated by the argument that Dorries had not said she would leave within 6 months. She has left within 6 seconds!
There is a part of me that thinks Boris is only getting the sort of duplicitous treatment he has given others.
That is largely true. He did get us, rightly or wrongly, to leave the EU. He gave the Tories a substantial majority. He did take the lead in Ukraine. It is important to recognise his considerable strengths (as well as his appalling weaknesses)
I am looking forward to a joint statement from Phil & Holly saying they cannot stomach how disloyal the Conservative Party is
Those 3 articles present a far more accurate position of the reality.
Sunak was arm-twisting the Committee to recommend less than 10 days. Then Boris disagreed with Sunak in relation to handing over information. As in, for whatever reason, Boris wanted to be more honest than Sunak.
So Sunak stabbed him in the back. Both on the suspension and the peerages. I am fascinated by the argument that Dorries had not said she would leave within 6 months. She has left within 6 seconds!
There is a part of me that thinks Boris is only getting the sort of duplicitous treatment he has given others.
But, as you say, two wrongs don't make a right.
It is just one very long article. It seems a perfectly logical explanation of how events unfolded. I dont see that Sunak stabbed him in the back, even though he could have advised him on the Peerage procedure. Boris has been sla gging him off at every opportunity.
I think the point about Nadine Dorries is that neither she nor Boris understood the procedure. She only resigned when she found out that she wasnt getting a Peerage, and there was nothing she could do to get one. She hadnt already resigned or notified HOLAC that she intended to, and the list had been published.
Johnson allies believe this is all part of a concerted plot to drive him and his closest allies out of public life. One Tory grandee said: “He even sent one of his henchmen to Priti Patel to urge her to stand as London mayor. She was told if she didn’t win, she would get a peerage. By all accounts she was furious and saw it as part of an effort to get rid of her — but she has no intention of going anywhere.”
That is largely true. He did get us, rightly or wrongly, to leave the EU. He gave the Tories a substantial majority. He did take the lead in Ukraine. It is important to recognise his considerable strengths (as well as his appalling weaknesses)
I am looking forward to a joint statement from Phil & Holly saying they cannot stomach how disloyal the Conservative Party is
It would probably be great fun to go out for a pint with him. You wouldnt want him to marry your sister. He is not a suitable candidate for any responsible job.
Those 3 articles present a far more accurate position of the reality.
Sunak was arm-twisting the Committee to recommend less than 10 days. Then Boris disagreed with Sunak in relation to handing over information. As in, for whatever reason, Boris wanted to be more honest than Sunak.
So Sunak stabbed him in the back. Both on the suspension and the peerages. I am fascinated by the argument that Dorries had not said she would leave within 6 months. She has left within 6 seconds!
There is a part of me that thinks Boris is only getting the sort of duplicitous treatment he has given others.
But, as you say, two wrongs don't make a right.
Eight people were removed from Boris Johnson's peerages list, Lords vetting body reveals
The body that vets nominations to the House of Lords has confirmed it did not support eight peerages submitted by Boris Johnson.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) said it would "not comment on individuals" but confirmed it had not supported eight peerage nominees submitted in the former prime minister's resignation honours.
Over the weekend there were reports in The Sunday Times that Mr Johnson believed Mr Sunak had broken a promise to wave through the entire list of honours - a charge Downing Street has denied.
A spokesman for the independent commission said in a statement: "The House of Lords Appointments Commission considered the nominations proposed by the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP in line with its usual processes.
"All nominations made by Mr Johnson were received and processed by Holac. "Eight nominees were not supported by the commission.
"Rishi Sunak has not changed, altered, the list in any way," he said. Asked whether he thought Mr Johnson was not fully across the process, he said the former prime minister "occasionally... wouldn't be all over the details".
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/observer-view-boris-johnson-resignation-050143338.html
Did/does Boris have faults? Of course he does.
Does he regularly do things that suit himself, rather than anyone else? Of course he does.
But he brought results. Winning elections. Getting Brexit through the hopeless logjam left by May.
A politician stronger on ideas than carrying them through. Flawed. But effective in foreign policy. Provided effective leadership during the pandemic-yes, mistakes were made, particularly at the beginning and the end. There was some "do as I say, not as I do" stuff. Like that doesn't happen every single time.
But the portrayal in that article of him being removed because of Partygate is nonsense. Let's not forget-he has been replaced by someone just as guilty. Mistakes under his watch happened-but show me 1 of his personally (as opposed to collective decisions) that matched "eat out to help out"?
Don't like the man. Never have. Never will. But he was voted in for a 5-year-term in 2019. On a manifesto that I hated. But that he largely stuck to. Hated for delivering Brexit-that the electorate voted for. Removed as PM without an election, for outrage in relation to an MP still sitting as one, with no suspension.
Removed as MP for allegedly lying to the House. Something every single PM in my lifetime has done. Thatcher and her case against the Miners? Blair and his "weapons of mass destruction"?
I don't want PMs and MPs removed because someone else doesn't like them. I don't want them removed because I don't like them.
I want them removed at the ballot box. Democratically.
Former PM unlikely to seek a new seat
. His anger was compounded when it emerged some of his nominations for peerages had been dropped.
We can reveal that:
• Allies of Johnson said he felt “helpless” and had admitted privately “weeks ago” that he was “probably going to jack it in”.
• He was on a flight to Cairo when he was informed by the committee he had been found in contempt of parliament over partygate.
• Members of the committee were said to have been discussing a 20-day suspension before Johnson resigned.
• Extra security has been implemented to protect the members since Johnson’s resignation statement attacked them.
• Johnson, on being told that the government would not whip Tory MPs to vote against the sanction, said: “I’m f***ed.”
• David Cameron joked with friends that he had contributed to Johnson’s downfall by introducing legislation making it easier to recall MPs and force by-elections.
• The three by-elections are likely to be held as soon as possible, with the process starting as soon as Monday.
Although he failed to whip up a civil war, Johnson’s allies made clear their fury with Sunak. They accused the prime minister of being a “dishonourable swindler”, saying he had broken a promise to push through the entire list of honours — claims dismissed as “lies” by Downing Street.
In response to the allegation that Sunak intervened to remove Johnson’s allies from the peerage list, the government took the highly unusual step of declassifying the final list that had been approved by Holac.
It showed that the commission had not approved peerages for Dorries, Adams or Sharma, meaning they were not submitted to Sunak and were therefore not sent on by him to King for formal approval.
Speculation that Johnson was planning to stand in Dorries’s safe Mid Bedfordshire seat appears unfounded, but allies did not rule out a return to politics.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f62f2776-07c7-11ee-9e46-1e1d57315b13?shareToken=14922134958130e3069518f73b16f66a
Nadine Dorries denied a peerage because Sunak doesn't want a by-election.
Boris resigns because he was facing a forced by-election. Not because of the Committee decision. The next step is a vote in the Commons. The Tories have a Majority, and could vote for a 9-day or less suspension, thus avoiding a by-election. But Boris clearly knew that the Tories were not going to use their Majority in this way.
How 2-faced is that?
Tim Shipman
@ShippersUnbound
🚨The secret meeting which put Sunak and Boris at war again
🚨 Why the privileges committee really turned on Johnson
🚨 Why Nadine Dorries didn't get her peerage
🚨 Who is Captain Scarlet?
YOUR DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO THE LATEST TORY PSYCHODRAMA IS HERE
Chris
@chrisbrighton10
·
25m
Just read it . Very good
Martin Dean
@MartinDDean
·
23m
A good read.
Would be justice if GB 'News' now dropped Nads
Most red wall voters more worried about gas bills, jobs and mortgages than Brexit now
If anyone believes that was not politically motivated, with the unseen hand of Rishi guiding it, then they also believe the word gullible is not in the dictionary.
Firstly, HOLAC has previous with Boris. Big battle over whether Cruddas should be allowed to be given a peerage.
Boris had about 50 people in his Honours list. Including 10 MPs. All accepted except for the 3 MPs that would have triggered by-elections. So-Damehoods and Knighthoods all round. But the 3 to be given Peerages were ruled "not fit and proper".
Terrible. Partisan decision. With the interests of Rishi Sunak written in foot high capital letters.
That would mean that irrespective of their conduct they would remain in place until a general election was due.
We are left with a new PM who has been fined for exactly the same Partying.
And I look forward to Sunak telling the House that he had no hand in refusing those 3 peerages. The names were leaked months ago.
Is anyone really asking me to believe that Dorries and Sharma are not fit and proper people to be in the House of Lords, but at the same time approving "Dame" Priti Patel and "Sir" Jacob Rees-Mogg?
The only difference I can see is avoiding by-elections.
PS-I don't want a rule where someone "remains in place until a general election is due"
I do want a rule where, if the ruling party chooses to change their leader (as opposed to one caused by unavoidable circumstance), then they have to call a general election.
Just how did a polite meeting with the PM over honours descend into chaos and lead to Boris Johnson’s dramatic resignation?
It was the meeting Downing Street said would not happen and this weekend they may wish it hadn’t. But when Boris Johnson met Rishi Sunak in the prime minister’s House of Commons office a week last Friday, he claimed to have come in peace.
Johnson urged Sunak to approve his resignation honours list. In return he would bury the hatchet and campaign hard for the Conservatives in the “red wall” seats at the next election.
What was said in the meeting and what was subsequently understood by both sides was very different and has this weekend unleashed civil war, not peace. It led directly to Johnson’s decision to resign as an MP yesterday evening, just hours after his close ally Nadine Dorries also jumped ship having learned she was not getting a peerage, leaving Sunak with the headache of by-elections the Tories might well now lose. The MP Nigel Adams, another Johnson loyalist, resigned on Saturday.
Johnson’s allies this weekend directly accused the prime minister of “deceit” and of tacitly encouraging the privileges committee to find him in contempt of parliament for lying to MPs about lockdown parties — the immediate cause of his resignation. They claim Sunak removed several of Johnson’s nominees for honours. Both of these claims are “categorically untrue”, according to No 10, which instead claims Johnson misunderstood the process of awarding peerages and is master of his own demise.
This is more than just another episode in the post-Brexit Tory psychodrama. It is also a story of human ego and hurt, but one that has the heat to combust the Tories’ slender hopes of victory in 2024. What remains unclear is whether these are the last bellowings of a political mastodon whose time has passed, or the start of a campaign of attacks that will end up destroying Sunak as well.
Johnson had been pressing for an audience with the prime minister for some time, but two weeks ago Downing Street denied one would take place. It was only arranged on the morning of June 2. The two men met, with one of Sunak’s political aides watching, at 4.30pm that day.
The meeting lasted around 45 minutes. For the first 25 minutes it was cordial and productive. Sunak was keen to pick Johnson’s brain about political strategy and the two discussed the best ways of taking the fight to Keir Starmer and Labour. Those involved in planning the election campaign, such as Isaac Levido, mastermind of the 2019 landslide, were also keen that Johnson’s skills be harnessed. “Boris made some bridge-building efforts,” an ally said. “He wants to win the next election. He wants to beat Starmer. He basically offered to put the leadership question off the table.”
Then Johnson raised the issue of peerages and the atmosphere chilled. No 10 had made clear to Johnson in advance that Sunak did not want to discuss honours, a point also made publicly when news of a possible meeting first emerged. “I don’t want to talk about that,” Sunak said.
“We must talk about it,” Johnson replied. He proceeded to press for assurances that MPs who had been submitted for peerages — Nadine Dorries, Alok Sharma and Nigel Adams — could wait and join the Lords later, noting how undesirable by-elections would be now. The No 10 claim is that Sunak said it was “their decision” whether to go or not.
What seems to have transpired is Sunak signalled he would approve the list put in front of him by officials. To the prime minister, this meant he would leave the House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) to vet the list and then nod it through without intervention. Johnson’s camp say he took that to mean Sunak would sign off on his original list. The PM was, they claim, “Sphinx-like, not saying much, not giving much away.”
After the meeting with Sunak, Johnson messaged Nadine Dorries to say: “Just finished the meeting with Rishi. List being published imminently. You’re on it.” When it finally dropped on Friday, it was shorn of peerages for Dorries, Adams and Sharma, as well as gongs for two Tory donors, David Ross and Stuart Marks.
A Johnson ally accused Sunak of “a sleight of hand we regard as deceitful”, accusing him of being “clever-clever” and misreading the politics. “He thinks he’s being very clever when he’s being very stupid. He’s like a **** batsman who completely misreads the delivery.” Another accused Sunak of sophistry and speaking in tongues.
The problem for Johnson is that the only person taking notes was the Sunak aide. In this account, Sunak said to Johnson: “I don’t want you to leave this room thinking I have made you a promise as that will be a problem in our relationship going forward.”
This weekend, a Downing Street source said: “The former prime minister raised the matter of peerages, to which the current prime minister made clear he would follow precedent and not interfere with the process. Any suggestions of promises made or guarantees given are categorically untrue.”
Another added: “If anyone is taken off the list by Downing Street, Holac has to declare that. They haven’t. There was no intervention by the PM at all.”
Dorries, Sharma and Adams were removed by Holac because, under the rules, for them to remain on Johnson’s list they would have had to have resigned as MPs within six months. None of them signalled to Holac they would do so. That left them with only one alternative: that Sunak would, at a later date and in his own name, formally nominate them for peerages. He was not prepared to do so.
This technical process appears to have been lost on Johnson and his nominees, who were under the mistaken belief they could be automatically re-vetted every six months without needing to be renominated as long as they announced they were standing down before the election.
Both Dorries and Sharma sought to get clarification from No 10 and Holac. “That information was deliberately withheld,” said one of the would-be peers. “If anyone had said to us that we needed to stand down to be on the list, that is what we would have done. They withheld the process to stop by-elections and look what has happened. I think there was something much more devious and sinister about it. They want Boris and his allies out of Westminster.”
Dorries first got wind that there might be a problem around 7pm on Thursday, when a journalist contacted her having been tipped off by someone in No 10. In conversations with a senior minister on Friday morning, she is understood to have repeatedly stated that Johnson had been given personal assurances that she could be re-vetted and nominated at a later date. She was informed he was in no position to be giving her personal assurances, and that she would have needed to have either resigned already, or have notified Holac of her intention to do so.
Dorries then asked whether it was possible for her to be put back on the list if she resigned that day. The answer was no. She then asked whether Sunak would submit her name for a peerage at the next election in 2024. She was told he would not be making personal assurances to anyone. She resigned hours later.
What turned this episode from a major blow-up into a total meltdown in relations was the privileges committee, which has been investigating whether Johnson lied to MPs about partygate.
At noon on Thursday, Johnson was on a plane to Cairo to give a speech when he received an email from the committee that included a letter from chairwoman Harriet Harman saying he had been found guilty of deliberate contempt of parliament.
Johnson erupted with rage as he and an aide read the email. The MPs’ conclusions were “absolutely extreme beyond any expectation”.
When a hard copy of the report was handed to Lord Pannick, Johnson’s lawyer, on Thursday afternoon, they could see it found that not only had he made recklessly inaccurate statements, he had deliberately lied to MPs. What’s more, the report concluded that in defending himself to the committee, Johnson had made further inaccurate claims under oath, themselves a contempt of parliament.
Johnson, believing the report to be “nakedly political and transparently biased”, turned to an aide and said: “This just confirms all our worst suspicions. It’s a total stitch-up and they’re not even bothering to hide it.”
A source close to him said: “They are effectively claiming to have gone back in time and put themselves inside his own brain and claimed with 100 per cent certainty that they know what he was thinking, when there was not one email or WhatsApp showing that he set out to lie.”
Johnson was particularly shocked because his team had, until around two weeks ago, been assured by Tory whips that MPs on the committee, which has a Conservative majority, were leaning towards a suspension of less than ten days — the threshold after which there can be a recall vote in an MP’s seat, which can force a by-election.
Aides say that back channels went quiet a fortnight ago as Johnson and No 10 fell out over whether to redact WhatsApp messages being sent to the Covid inquiry, and the belief in Team Boris that ministers were behind a decision to send details from Johnson’s prime ministerial appointments diary to the police amid claims that it might provide evidence of further lockdown breaches.
“It looks very much like No 10 tipped the Tories on the committee the wink that they could throw the book at Boris,” a Johnson ally said. “They think they can only trust him if they kill him — but he’s like Captain Scarlet: he just regenerates. They’ve made a serious mistake. He speaks and people listen — and he’ll be saying a lot in the weeks to come.”
In essence, Johnson’s team believe that Sunak could have saved him and chose not to, and that that was a deliberate choice.
Sunak’s allies say it would have been completely inappropriate to intervene, either to lean on the privileges committee to save him, or to intervene to make changes to the list of peerages. “Whatever the PM does, he follows the procedure,” a Sunak aide said.
What is clear is that the privileges committee changed its mind in the last fortnight — but not for the reason the Johnsonites think. Sources close to the inquiry say the evidence submitted to the police, which was also sent to the MPs, tipped the balance in favour of a suspension of more than ten days. It is understood the MPs are now contemplating 20 days, although Johnson was told only that it would “significantly exceed” ten.
The clincher — and the reason Johnson has been found guilty of the new contempt — was that the evidence implied potential rule-breaking had extended to Chequers. “He didn’t restrict himself to denying there were parties in Downing Street,” a source said. “He was emphatic about the fact there was nothing at any stage in any venue.”
The committee is also said to have become increasingly irritated by the “belligerence” of Johnson’s lawyers. “He did everything within his power to annoy [the committee],” a source said. “They were not necessarily training their sights on his head. They were up for some sort of compromise.”
Johnson’s woes were compounded when it was made clear to him in recent days that the government would not whip Tory MPs to vote down the committee’s recommended sanctions. Johnson is said to have responded: “I’m f***ed.”
Furious at his treatment by the privileges committee and angry about what had happened to Dorries, he decided to quit the Commons, denying MPs the opportunity to kick him out. He privately expressed his anger at the prospect of dozens of Tory MPs voting in favour of the suspension: “Don’t these people realise they are only in parliament because of me?”
Johnson’s resignation letter was blistering, condemning the privileges committee and Sunak’s drift away from what he regards as properly Conservative policies in equal measure. Dorries had quit a few hours earlier. One friend said: “They’ve done a Thelma and Louise.”
Johnson allies believe this is all part of a concerted plot to drive him and his closest allies out of public life. One Tory grandee said: “He even sent one of his henchmen to Priti Patel to urge her to stand as London mayor. She was told if she didn’t win, she would get a peerage. By all accounts she was furious and saw it as part of an effort to get rid of her — but she has no intention of going anywhere.”
Recent visitors to Johnson’s office, at Millbank Tower in London, have found the former prime minister to be lacking some of his usual ebullience, a man ground down by having to spend a large amount of his time with lawyers refighting battles already fought in Downing Street. While there was an element of fury to his decision, there was also weariness.
Johnson regularly voices to friends and visitors his belief that what he perceives as a political and civil service establishment “is truly out to stop Brexit and wants me out of the way”. He believes that Sunak, along with Dominic Cummings, former aide Dougie Smith and senior civil servants, all conspired to force him from Downing Street over the partygate claims, which he still regards privately as “complete ****”.
In quieter moments, Johnson acknowledges mistakes about some of the handling of events in No 10, but not that he was to blame for the end of his premiership. When an MP recently put to him that the privileges committee had been created with his approval, Johnson claimed he was in India at the time and distracted. He also suggested that he had left Chris Heaton-Harris, his former chief whip, to handle the details.
A senior government source added: “Three courts decide the fate of a politician. There is the House, there is the privileges committee and there is the electorate — and Boris has decided that he doesn’t want to face any of them.”
Sunak was chairing a cabinet committee meeting on small boats when Johnson resigned. Aides did not interrupt proceedings, but told him as he left the cabinet room. “He was disappointed in one way, sanguine in another,” one source said.
Johnson’s Tory rivals rejoiced. George Osborne tweeted: “What a lovely evening.” David Cameron joked with friends: “Who knew my recall law was so powerful, everyone called it feeble at the time.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was at a dinner in Derby celebrating Dame Margaret Beckett’s 40 years as an MP when it was announced from the stage Johnson had resigned. “There was a lot of cheering,” a source said. “Keir just smiled.”
Labour is now expected to prioritise fighting the by-election in Johnson’s seat of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, which has never been held by any other party other than the Tories, over Dorries’ former berth, Mid Bedfordshire, which has been Tory since 1931. A Whitehall source said: “A big problem for Sunak is that these are precisely the Cameron coalition seats he promised he would win. One is a heartland rural Tory seat, the other is a suburban one. Both heavily Leave-voting.”
It is understood that the by-elections are likely to be held as soon as possible, with the writs moved as soon as Monday. An emergency meeting attended by senior party figures was held in Downing Street on Friday night to discuss the vacancies. Another is imminent.
The privileges committee, which says Johnson has “impugned the integrity” of the Commons, will now meet on Monday to complete its inquiry. It is then expected to publish its findings, although it is unclear, given Johnson’s resignation, whether it will now recommend any sanction. Having lost the power to suspend Johnson, the committee could recommend the only other meaningful sanction left open to it: denying him privileged access to parliament, as is normally afforded to ex-MPs. That would mean stripping him of his pass.
Johnson’s allies, who have also called the committee a “kangaroo court” and a “witch-hunt”, could also face censure. The report will warn explicitly that any further attempts to impugn the committee could see the offending MPs face contempt proceedings of their own. Members of the committee have been given extra security because of Johnson’s attacks.
Enemies of Johnson will see a parallel morality play in the conjunction of events on both sides of the Atlantic, with Johnson announcing his departure from parliament on the same day as Donald Trump was indicted for hoarding classified documents. The difference is that Trump could still win election from jail, whereas Johnson cannot be prime minister without a seat.
Johnson’s team have left open his running again, but one ally said: “He won’t be standing for election any time soon.” Johnson and Dorries had a conversation on Thursday about whether he should seek to stand in her seat and she said: “Don’t put yourself through it.” Johnson replied: “F***ing ****, I won’t.”
What is certain is that he won’t go quietly. Plans for more journalism and a TV show are in the works and he will continue to make millions from paid speeches. A memoir is already well advanced. Those who have seen what he has written say it will be a blockbuster book. “The man can turn a phrase,” a publishing source said.
Some still hope that a rapprochement can be found between Johnson and Sunak. A cabinet minister close to Johnson said: “He will cause Labour as much trouble as the Tories. If he says that Labour is going to betray Brexit voters at the general election, a lot of them will listen to him.”
What is clear, from the briefing and counter-briefing, is that the two most prominent people in the Tory party are daggers drawn. “He’ll be back — but from the sidelines,” a close friend of Johnson said. “He is making lots of money. He needs money. He likes money. I think he’ll use the money to try to buy back all the people he lost in his life.”
Whether Rishi Sunak likes it or not, Boris Johnson is still a factor in his life.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-goes-down-swinging-these-people-are-only-in-parliament-because-of-me-s9qr55l6r
Sunak was arm-twisting the Committee to recommend less than 10 days. Then Boris disagreed with Sunak in relation to handing over information. As in, for whatever reason, Boris wanted to be more honest than Sunak.
So Sunak stabbed him in the back. Both on the suspension and the peerages. I am fascinated by the argument that Dorries had not said she would leave within 6 months. She has left within 6 seconds!
There is a part of me that thinks Boris is only getting the sort of duplicitous treatment he has given others.
But, as you say, two wrongs don't make a right.
I am looking forward to a joint statement from Phil & Holly saying they cannot stomach how disloyal the Conservative Party is
It seems a perfectly logical explanation of how events unfolded.
I dont see that Sunak stabbed him in the back, even though he could have advised him on the Peerage procedure.
Boris has been sla gging him off at every opportunity.
I think the point about Nadine Dorries is that neither she nor Boris understood the procedure.
She only resigned when she found out that she wasnt getting a Peerage, and there was nothing she could do to get one.
She hadnt already resigned or notified HOLAC that she intended to, and the list had been published.
That is largely true. He did get us, rightly or wrongly, to leave the EU. He gave the Tories a substantial majority. He did take the lead in Ukraine. It is important to recognise his considerable strengths (as well as his appalling weaknesses)
I am looking forward to a joint statement from Phil & Holly saying they cannot stomach how disloyal the Conservative Party is
It would probably be great fun to go out for a pint with him.
You wouldnt want him to marry your sister.
He is not a suitable candidate for any responsible job.
The body that vets nominations to the House of Lords has confirmed it did not support eight peerages submitted by Boris Johnson.
The House of Lords Appointments Commission (Holac) said it would "not comment on individuals" but confirmed it had not supported eight peerage nominees submitted in the former prime minister's resignation honours.
Over the weekend there were reports in The Sunday Times that Mr Johnson believed Mr Sunak had broken a promise to wave through the entire list of honours - a charge Downing Street has denied.
A spokesman for the independent commission said in a statement: "The House of Lords Appointments Commission considered the nominations proposed by the Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP in line with its usual processes.
"All nominations made by Mr Johnson were received and processed by Holac.
"Eight nominees were not supported by the commission.
"Rishi Sunak has not changed, altered, the list in any way," he said. Asked whether he thought Mr Johnson was not fully across the process, he said the former prime minister "occasionally... wouldn't be all over the details".
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/rishi-sunak-did-not-intervene-081400943.html
ooh-er, here go, war is officially declared.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65876723