General British politics discussion thread

Absolutely. His voting record and some of the statements he's made surely go against everything Labour are supposed to stand for. I don't understand how he's been welcomed into the party with open arms, even the union jack facemask he had on as he crossed the aisle just screamed Tory.

I saw the Labour MP Charlotte Nichols being called out by grassroots on Twitter for hypocrisy. She said a couple of weeks ago when there were (probably nonsense) rumours swirling that Corbyn might start a new party that any MP who changed party should be forced to sit a by-election, but two weeks later she now no longer believes that. She did say that in the event a by-election was called that Wakeford would have her full support, which would mean the voters would effectively be given the choice between a blue Tory and a red Tory while Lucy Burke, the Labour candidate who lost to him by just 400 votes last time out, would no longer be given the opportunity to run.

For her part Lucy Burke has put out a statement that Labour should give the local party the choice to select a candidate such as herself rather than automatically running Wakeford next time out, while she did remain diplomatic and welcomed Wakeford to the party saying she believes people can change.

It made good headlines for one PMQs but it does seem to have just riled up Labour's grass roots and left the party to be attacked by both Conservatives and left of center Labour supporters who want to see a by-election with genuine candidates.

Possibly people with psychopathic authoritarian tendencies are drawn to the Conservative party, and they also seem to thrive in it? No great surprise that so many of them share the same selfish and brutish instincts of Johnson, the party culture seems designed to select for it.

It gives the distinct impression of a PM who doesn't engage in any actual work and who just does PR appearances.

The various news Channel’s sources are saying that Downing Street are worried that the report into the parties that occurred won’t help Boris Johnson like it seemed it would earlier in the week. You’d wonder whether that’s the true feelings of no10 or is it some spin to feign worry ?

The man is shameless when it comes to his PR opportunities

The daily mirror is reporting that the report from Sue Gray is being pushed back until next week due to “fresh evidence.” Maybe the Downing Street worry wasn’t that misplaced if those reports are true.

In comes Frabricant trying to ask for cool heads....

After everything that's happened with the Johnson government in the past few weeks I must say it's odd seeing himself, Raab and Truss weigh in on the very serious topic of Ukraine. It's almost as if I've forgotten that, despite the recent pantomime, when everything is said and done, they are still the ones who are making critical decisions for the country. A bit like seeing the town drunk climb into the cockpit of the plane to pilot the flight you're about to board.

ITV are reporting that Boris Johnson held a birthday party during the first lockdown in 2020 when those gatherings were banned. I hope Sue Gray hasn’t finalised her report yet as has may need to add another chapter.

I never knew the term “work event” had such a broad meaning. I wonder what else she knows that isn’t public knowledge ? I’d say everyone who was within 10 Downing Street between March 2020 and recently must be rechecking what the rules were at different times.

Well tell us how you really feel Paul. I mean he’s not wrong in fairness.

The thing is, you've got Boris Johnson, a notorious liar, contradicting Dominic Cummings, a notorious liar. Who are you going to believe? Clearly, this is not a decision you can make based on the credibility of either witness; you're going to have to find some other criterion for making the decision.

It's very much not in Downing Street's interest to suggest that people shouldn't believe Cummings because he's not a credible or reliable person, because if they put that forward as a criterion of evaluation it pretty much torpedoes their own prime witness below the waterline. So they're going to have to find some other spin.

They line they have taken so far, in fact, is pretty much to accept the truth of the various leaks, but to argue that what they disclose is defensible or understandable or forgivable. It's not a very strong line, but it's all they've got. They have presumably considered rubbishing the information leaked as false but, the thing is, they know it's true, and they know there are a great many people (besides Cummings) who know that it is true, so there's a high risk that an "it's all lies!" defence will come back to bite them in the bum fairly badly.