I am not sure that the No.10 ethics adviser, Lord Geidt, intended to yesterday set himself up as the person to bring Johnson down, but it seems he might be just have done that. His challenge to Johnson, in which he asked how Johnson's fixed penalty notice could be considered compliant with the Ministerial Code of Conduct was appropriate.
Johnson, of course, ducked and weaved in response. Effectively he said this was none of Geidt's business. In his own mind, no doubt, Johnson thinks his recent gutting of the Code is in any case retrospective.
It is thought possible Geidt will resign as a result of the difference of view. Whether he does, or not, matters little. What Geidt has already successfully signalled is that even in No.10 there are people questioning Johnson's fitness for Office. More MPs are likely to send letters calling for a change of Tory leader as a result. Johnson might face a confidence vote as early as next week.
The widespread feeling is that Johnson will win that vote. It is presumed that the 140 MPs holding some position in government will vote for him. He only needs 180 to win. But he will be seriously damaged by the vote. If he goes to the next election having suffered such a blow his chances of winning are very low. No leader can win the country when their own party has expressed serious doubts about him.
But, what then? Lord Geidt, as ethics adviser, offered no clue. Nor will anyone else. We would be in limbo, facing multiple challenges, with a prime minister intent on wreaking havoc and no mechanism, barring an unlikely Opposition win in a no confidence vote in the Commons, to stop him.
If evidence was needed that we need constitutional reform, this is it.
If evidence was also needed that it is the time for the Opposition to say what that reform might be then this is also it.
But Labour considers to dither, its one big idea in the form of the windfall tax now stripped from it.
Even when discussion on this issue of constitutional reform is the one big thing that it can contribute to the growing debate on the Union in Scotland, it still can't say what it thinks.
Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy and Wes Streeting are all, apparently, writing books right now. It's hard to imagine what they might be saying. I hope there is more substance to their arguments than current political debate suggests.
As we enter a long weekend of rather uncomfortable wallowing in nostalgia, which would appear to be what we are now best at as a result of too much time under Tory governments, it would be good to think that someone in Westminster other than Caroline Lucas and the SNP knew what they wanted. But in the other, largely English and Welsh parties that thinking is hard to discern.
Lord Geidt correctly spotted an absence of ethics yesterday. Tory MPs could, if they wish, address that issue. The absence of ideas looks as if it will be harder to solve.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Now that the windfall tax has gone to the Tories, why don’t Labour concentrate on the ‘real’ currency system as opposed to the fairytale one espoused by the mainstream neoliberal narrative? What could they have to lose? The Tories would attack Labour for it, of course. But they would use any excuse to attack Labour anyway. Nevertheless, I can’t see them doing it. Labour seem rather reticent about doing much of anything.
Rachel Reeves is ex Bank of England. The hope that she has the willingness or capacity to consider anything other than “orthodox” economics feels very slim.
Rachel Reeves is not just economically incompetent, she is also stupid.
A few months ago there was some kind of inancial scandal involving a Tory MP/minister. There have been so many that I can’t recall the details, but I think it was to do with declaring interests. She was on the radio, naturally (and properly) declaring this was yet another breach of the rules and the Tory concerned should be dealt with. The interviewer asked her if she would also apply that to a named Labour MP who had apparently done something similar.
Instead of immediately declaring that rules are riules, they apply to everyone and there should be no exceptions, she backtracked and ummed and ahed and muttered about not being sure of the details. Absolutely brilliant, gave the impression that Labour are as corrupt as the current bunch of Tories (which they may be) and shot herself and her party squarely in the foot.
On Newsnight on Monday evening, I saw Ben Chu asking if the government printed too much money to fund the pandemic. Mervyn King, John Redwood and Daniel Hannam were quoted. But Ben Chu pointed out Japan and Switzerland as having done the same but had low inflation. He ended by saying that economists think the inflation is due global food and fuel prices to It was late and I might have missed something but it left me wondering if the BBC is moving towards discussion which doesn’t follow the bank of England line.
Ben Chu is 15 minutes in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0017x1q/newsnight-30052022
I am working om a rebuttal of this
I too watched the Newsnight episode mentioned by Ian Stevenson, and his comments are correct.
Ben Chu’s piece was effectively a denial of the money supply theory of those he mentioned. Maybe he has been taking lessons from Andy Verity (the BBC’s MMT-friendly economics correspondent). I seem to recall that Richard was in contact with Andy?
Ben Chu’s piece was followed (spoiled) by Kirsty Wark interviewing Gerard Lyons of Netwealth, who we were told was one of those called to advise the government before the windfall tax was announced. Lyons is Chief Economic Strategist at Netwealth and was Chief Economic Adviser to the Mayor of London (Boris Johnson!). He seemed to be trying to distance himself from the windfall tax decision and said he thought handing out money was not the best idea.
The puzzle for me is why Ben Chu didn’t get to interview Lyons, rather than Kirsty.
Lords Geidt must see he is being used as a human shield. You can’t act as the ethics adviser to a person who has none. He should resign.
“I didn’t intend to break the law” is pathetic. Most criminal offences do not include an element of intention to break the law, but rather test if a person was deliberately or recklessly doing the prohibited act, when they knew or should have known the consequences, and not whether they knew what they were doing was illegal.
Precisely
They spoke to Daniel Hannan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why? What were they thinking?!! Are they out of their tiny little minds?
He’s a blasted liar!!! What an earth are they doing talking to him for? He’s infamous – a bare faced liar if there ever was one.
Oh Jesus – how can you trust the views of a creature like Hannan?!!!
Unbelievable. That’s really got my goat that has..
Mervyn King is the victim of too many hours spent living it up at Davos and John Redwood is definitely one egg short of an omelette but Hannan is the BREXIT devil incarnate as far as I’m concerned. Evil man.
Ignorantia juris non excusat, Latin for “ignorance of the law excuses not”, is a legal principle. I always understood that ignorance of the law is not a defence in the UK. Starmer is a former head of the CPS – shouldn’t he be quoting this at Johnson?
I wonder where all this leaves Margaret Ferrier (MP) who is due to stand trial in August for Covid breaches back in September 2020.
We had a media fest when our Chief Medical Officer broke the rules and resigned. I don’t know where the #partygate scandal leaves Margaret Ferrier but the Scottish unionist media will headline the trial every day. Regardless of the result, it will be on the front pages concatenated with previous minor misdemeanours such as the First Minister’s mask slip ups. In view of the recent (unprecedented) coverage of Scottish politics on the BBC UK News, I expect Clive Myrie or Huw Edwards will have something to say about it.
It must be hell having to wait so long for a trial to take place. I almost pity Keir Starmer having to wait ‘such a long time’ before he received the questionnaire from Durham Police. It will be tricky for him to fill it in without the assistance of a focus group.
Seriously though, I do wonder what took Durham Police so long.
“the absence of ideas in politics will be harder to solve”, especially when integrity has been thrown to the wolves.
I have just heard Caroline Johnson MP (BBC Radio 5) throwing her Party and herself ‘under the bus’, by defending the indefensible. She appears to possess no sense that the contamination of Johnson’s rule extends beyond himself to his Party and the MPs keeping him in office. I listend to the same absurd, discredited notion that he had “all the big decisions right” over covid and beyond. Over 180,000 deaths – one of the worst death rates in the whole developed world – and a string of administration, management and economic catastrophes that stretch back years without correction.
In a previous thread I gave specific examples of catastrophic overspends in Government through poor foresight, Government mis-managment or blatant incompetence (from the spectacular Test and Trace fiasco, through cronyism or the abject failure to manage basic fraud), that I easily (and without attempting to be comprehensive), with a total waste of £74Bn. Caroline Johnson presumably thinks this is proof of resounding Conservative success.
A demonstration of just how hopelessly ‘at sea’ Caroline Johnson is over Governance, when her critics turned to the current airport/airline/travel disaster unfolding at airports; she said it was up to the airline industry to fix it. There has not even been a Cobra meeting over this; rather like Boris Johnson avoiding Cobra meetings in the early Covid crisis.
Caroline Johnson is clearly a thoughtless, neoliberal Conservative who still thinks that markets always work, economic equilibrium is the norm, quickly self-corrective and restorative. She clearly believes in fallacies. Perhaps she is relying on Boris Johnson’s special visas (Conservatives do love special, queue-jumping visas) for Harvard and Yale graduates; presumably to cover the large shortfall in airport baggage handlers.
“it would be good to think that someone in Westminster other than Caroline Lucas and the SNP knew what they wanted.”
Clive Lewis MP?
* Supports PR
* Champions the Green New Deal
* Supports cross-party working
* Served in Afghanistan, accepts Labour Trident policy but is opposed to it
* Understands, and speaks up for, the truth of how the economy works – MMT
* Black so understands BLM and racism, including antisemitism
* Refused to sign the BOD “10 Pledges”
Of course, your mileage may vary.
He is a member of the Green New Deal group, so we talk quite often
Unfortunately, he doesn’t get much air time.
The question raised was one of ethics, vision and values and that these seem to be lacking in politics. This is right. Rearranging the constitutional architecture – as valuable a goal as that might be – doesn’t address these. RH Tawney seems relevant to these questions. I think he would have enjoyed reading your blog posts.
That’s flattering
I’ve been saying for the past two days on facebook that if Johnson wants to go back to imperial measurements he could go the whole way and go back to imperial Rome. I suggested Lord Geidt might be his Brutus. Nice to have my idea confirmed.
🙂