2min 25sec clip - Boris Johnson sent questions in advance!

Boris - look her in the eyes and tell her you never bend the rules

 

Who is responsible for seeking a Judicial Review on whether the UK COVID Inquiry can see Boris Johnson's WhatsApp messages?

A headline from this Sky News post is " COVID inquiry: Government seeks judicial review over order to hand over Boris Johnson WhatsApp messages"

What is interesting is how, in the bulk of the reporting I've seen or heard, the decision to seek such a review is described as being something down to the Cabinet Office.  Strangely absent from the reporting on this subject are the names of the ministers responsible.  So just to clarify, (all info and pictures sourced from wikipedia), those in the management chain - so presumably taking responsibility for this decision - are pictured and listed below.

The Minister for the Cabinet Office is Jeremy Quin, who is paid some £118k p.a

Jeremy reports to Oliver Dowding, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is paid some £154k p.a.

Oliver reports to Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, who is paid some £160k p.a.

Boris Johnson's Political Legacy: A Brief Analysis of Pros and Cons

Introduction As the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2019 to 2021, Boris Johnson left a lasting impact on the nation's political landscape. His legacy is marked by both achievements and controversies. Here, we summarize three key pros and cons of his political tenure:

Photo by NordWood Themes on Unsplash

Pros:

Brexit Completion: One of Boris Johnson's most significant achievements was his role in delivering Brexit. As the face of the Leave campaign during the 2016 EU referendum, Johnson was able to secure a Brexit deal with the European Union, effectively ending the UK's membership in the EU. This fulfilled a long-standing promise made by the Leave campaign and provided a sense of closure for many who had voted for Brexit.

Vaccine Rollout: Johnson's government played a pivotal role in the rapid development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. The UK was among the first countries to start widespread vaccinations, which contributed to a swift decline in COVID-19 cases and provided a ray of hope during the global pandemic. The efficient vaccination program showcased the government's ability to mobilize resources quickly.

Majority in Parliament: In the 2019 general election, Boris Johnson secured a significant majority in the House of Commons. This allowed him to push through legislation and pursue his agenda with relative ease, breaking the parliamentary gridlock that had hampered his predecessors. Johnson's political strength was especially significant in enabling the passage of the Brexit deal.

Cons:

Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Johnson's government faced criticism for its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Critics argued that the UK's initial approach to the pandemic was slow and disorganized, leading to a high number of cases and casualties. The controversy surrounding the timing of lockdowns and mixed messaging on restrictions fueled public discontent.

Ethical Concerns: Johnson's tenure was marred by allegations of unethical behavior and conflicts of interest. Accusations of cronyism in awarding contracts, concerns about his relationship with business figures, and questions regarding his use of funds for renovations at his residence (Downing Street) created an aura of distrust in his government.

The Northern Ireland Protocol: The implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, a part of the Brexit deal, has created tensions and challenges in the region. Critics argue that the protocol has disrupted trade and has the potential to undermine peace in Northern Ireland by inflaming existing political and sectarian divisions. This issue has strained the UK's relations with the EU and the Northern Ireland community.

In conclusion, Boris Johnson's political legacy is a mixed bag of accomplishments and controversies. His role in securing Brexit and the rapid vaccine rollout were significant achievements, while his government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical concerns, and the Northern Ireland Protocol remain major sources of criticism. Time will ultimately determine how history views his political legacy.

Source: Iasked Chat GPT3.5 to "write a short article summarising the 3 pros and cons of Boris Johnson political legacy" and it produced the text and post title above.  I made some small formatting changes and added the picture.

7min 42sec - Jonathan Pie: 'Boris Johnson Is a Liar' | NYT Opinion

8min 52sec clip - The life and lies of Boris Johnson

How will you change Boris?

So today the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson apologised.  

In response to the report from Sue Gray he apologised for all the Covid rule breaking parties held in No. 10.  The parties held as the majority of the public followed the Covid rules announced in his own daily televised briefings from No.10.

He apologised. 

 He took full responsibility. 

 He said he hadn't lied to the House of Commons when he said No. 10 had followed the Covid rules, because he believed he was attending work events. 

He said he had been humbled and had learnt a lesson. 

He said in response to all of this that at No.10 the entire senior management had been changed. 

He said his party is going to go on and win the next general election. 

And maybe they will given he and his collegaues have played us all for fools.  Leaving it to us, the little people, to follow the rules.  Which they plainly don't think apply to themselves.

Perhaps the only question left for Boris, given what the content of the Sue Gray report, is,

"How will you change Boris?"

Some detail 

In the Commons today just after 12:42 the Prime Minister, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, responding to the Sue Gray Report, apologised.  He took "full responsibility for everything that took place on my watch". 

In doing so he "set out the context, not to mitigate or to absolve myself in any way" and that "I am happy to set on the record now that when I came to this House and said in all sincerity that the rules and guidance had been followed at all times, it was what I believed to be true". 

In response to the report's findings the PM reported that at No. 10 "The entire senior management has changed". 

He concluded "by saying that I am humbled, and I have learned a lesson" and that he was grateful to Sue Gray for her report and due to it "we will be able to move on and focus on the priorities of the British people". 

A variety of those in the House of Commons Chamber responded to the PM's statement and I've picked out a couple of the PM's responses below: 

 - "at the time when I spoke to this House, I believed that what I was doing was attending work events, and, with the exception of the event in the Cabinet Room, that is a view that has been vindicated by the investigation";

- "we are going to go on and win the next general election".

Hansard record for 22/5/22 from which the quotes above are taken.

doing right or wrong - what principles govern how UK PM Boris Johnson behaves?

Whilst listening to the UK news this morning I was struck by how at the heart of Boris' statement on attending a party last year was this burning question "What moral principles  govern his behaviour?"

In the televised PM Questions yesterday Boris apologised - possibly.  He also provided the excuse that he thought the party last year that he admitted attending, (with bring your own booze), was actually a "work event", and so within the rules. Boris said that with hindsight he realised the rules had not been followed.  

In his statement he used language like "I regret" and "I apologise", but he also used language like "We didn't get it right".  Watching a re-run of his statement I thought he looked like a schoolboy who had been caught breaking the rules, and who had been forced to apologise when he didn't want to apologise really.  

Given the public's view that his familiarity with the truth is distant, many commentators thought his apology was a non-apology.  And that his "work event" excuse was an insult to those members of the public who had followed the rules.

One definition of ethics is that it is the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour.

So what are the moral principles that govern his behaviour?  From the statement yesterday, and events before that, I'd suggest the following as a started for ten:

1) Assume rules don't apply to yourself or your friends.

2) Work on the assumption that you'll get away with breaking the rules.

3) If people query your rule breaking then follow these steps:

        a) deny you have broken the rules;

        b) if a) doesn't work try to get the rules changed so your behaviour didn't break them;

        c) if b) doesn't work get somebody to rule that you did, in fact, follow the rules;

        d) if c) doesn't work appoint somebody who works for you to review what went on;

        e) refuse to discuss any alleged rule breaking till d)'s review has concluded;

        f) if in the meantime you are pressured to apologise try not to;

        g) if e) & f) don't work and you have to make an apology do so but:

                i) use "we" more than "I" in your apology;

               ii) claim at the time it wasn't clear you were breaking rules;

               iii) get friends to cite your rule breaking as a minor sideshow to your achievements.  

graphic - How well is Boris Johnson doing, and is he trustworthy - yougov results from July 2019 to end of 2021

found via a digg email