Boris Johnson: 'Partygate' report finds serious failures of leadership

[BeatMan]

The report released on Monday said lockdown-breaching parties involving Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his staff represented a "serious failure" to observe proper standards.

Senior civil servant Sue Gray concluded there had been "failures of leadership and judgment" in the government and "some of the events should not have been allowed to take place."

The parties being investigated took place during a strict coronavirus lockdown imposed by Johnson's government, during which people were told to stay at home and not to mix.

The inquiry has been billed as likely to be decisive for the prime minister's political fate.

What did the report say?
Gray said police were looking into 12 of the events that met the threshold for criminal investigation, with the possibility that any of those attending, including Johnson, could be fined for breaching COVID rules.

Given the ongoing investigation, the report did not specify whether the regulations had been broken in those cases. However, Gray did make some robust general observations.

"There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times," said the 12-page report.

https://www.dw.com/en/boris-johnson-partygate-report-finds-serious-failures-of-leadership/a-60610224

 

[KeithD]

Like Trump, everyone knew what they were getting from Boris Johnson before he got into the position.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Like Trump, everyone knew what they were getting from Boris Johnson before he got into the position.

Did we know when we put Gavin Newsom in office? He was at the Rams/Niners game yesterday sans the mask he forces on everyone else.

 

[oggbashan]

The Gray report has been emasculated by the Police investigation. Now we have to wait for what the Police do - if anything...

 

[pecksniff]

Will this lead to an election?

 

[oggbashan]

Will this lead to an election?

NO. Definitely not. The Conservatives hold a significant majority in the House of Commons. Replacing a Prime Minister is solely a matter for the Conservative party. No matter how many by-elections happen between now and the next scheduled election, even if the Conservatives lose ALL of them, they will still have more seats than all the other parties combined.


Boris brought the Conservatives greater electoral success than they had for decades. It might be sensible for another leader to go into the next election.

'Failure of leadership?'

It is far more than that. Number 10 has Civil Service and political advisers. Unless they ere all like Barnard Castle Cummings, someone should have said:

"You can't or shouldn't do that, Prime Minister, or staffers."

The TV programmes "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" were surprisingly accurate about the relationship between Civil Servants and a Minister or Prime Minister. A Sir Humphrey should have called a halt.

 

[pecksniff]

The TV programmes "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" were surprisingly accurate about the relationship between Civil Servants and a Minister or Prime Minister. A Sir Humphrey should have called a halt.

In the U.S., Sir Humphrey would be labeled "Deep State."

 

[KeithD]

Did we know when we put Gavin Newsom in office? He was at the Rams/Niners game yesterday sans the mask he forces on everyone else.

Why do you care? You don't advocate wearing masks, do you? Although born in California, I don't live anywhere near there. I have no reason to know or care what Gavin Newsom did or does.

And you are only posting this to be negative about everything but your rotten positions.

 

[Sean]

It was the first good speech I've seen from Starmer. And Theresa May was absolutely deadly.

 

[oggbashan]

It was the first good speech I've seen from Starmer. And Theresa May was absolutely deadly.

That is part of the Labour Party's problem. Starmer doesn't come across as a potential Prime Minister and he had gone on too long about Partygate when there are other substantial things he should be attacking the government for.

Once the Gray Report was announced, he should have held his fire until it was published.

If Boris goes and is replaced by someone else, that will take away the labour party's biggest electoral asset - they're not Boris.

 

[pecksniff]

That is part of the Labour Party's problem. Starmer doesn't come across as a potential Prime Minister and he had gone on too long about Partygate when there are other substantial things he should be attacking the government for.

Such as?

Serious question. We don't get much political news from the UK, this side of the pond.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Why do you care? You don't advocate wearing masks, do you? Although born in California, I don't live anywhere near there. I have no reason to know or care what Gavin Newsom did or does.

And you are only posting this to be negative about everything but your rotten positions.

Naturally, important people don't have to obey the mandates. Those are for the serfs, no?

 

[oggbashan]

Such as?

Serious question. We don't get much political news from the UK, this side of the pond.

1. The reduction of the £20 uprate of universal credit.

2. The mess over inflammable cladding on high rise buildings after the Grenfell fire. The government has announced more money but that still leaves flat owners tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket and unable to sell.

3. The lack of progress on nuclear power when older stations are being shut down.

4. The sewage being discharged illegally into rivers and the sea by private water companies with impunity.

%. The Ministry of Defence's procurement mess up, buying tanks that soldiers cannot stand being in for more than a few minutes. the problem has been known for some time but had not been corrected and more such tanks are being bought.

I could go on for page after page, but Starmer is concentrating on parties.

The Labour party is split down the middle with pro-Starmer and pro-Corbyn.

Another problem. one of the few Labour MPs in SE England is thinking of leaving the Labour party because it will do nothing to defend her from online trolls who have been giving her death threats, some so serious that she was unable to attend the party's conference because she was credibly told she would be killed if she went. The Labour party still has to rid itself of accusations of being anti-semitic and anti-women.

 

[pecksniff]

3. The lack of progress on nuclear power when older stations are being shut down.

Are nuclear-phobic politics the same in the UK as here?

The Labour party is split down the middle with pro-Starmer and pro-Corbyn.

Well, it is supposed to be a socialist party. Corbyn is a socialist. Blair never was. What's Starmer?

 

[pecksniff]

Another problem. one of the few Labour MPs in SE England is thinking of leaving the Labour party because it will do nothing to defend her from online trolls who have been giving her death threats, some so serious that she was unable to attend the party's conference because she was credibly told she would be killed if she went.

Who are these trolls? Tories, or some other faction?

 

[colddiesel]

Well, it is supposed to be a socialist party. Corbyn is a socialist. Blair never was. What's Starmer?

Starmer is essentially Blair lite. It will take two elections minimum to get the Tories out so they may as well dump Boris sooner rather than later.

 

[pecksniff]

Starmer is essentially Blair lite. It will take two elections minimum to get the Tories out so they may as well dump Boris sooner rather than later.

What's the point of getting the Tories out if the UK just ends up with Blair Lite?

 

[oggbashan]

Who are these trolls? Tories, or some other faction?

Woke Labour party activists.

The MP made the mistake of having the same views as the author J K Rowling. She believes that women are women and no man despite surgery or whatever, can become a woman.

Like J K Rowling she believes that trans etc people should have rights but NOT at the expense of hard-won women's rights.

That is common sense but is not acceptable to trans activists, so she has had many death threats.

 

[pecksniff]

Like J K Rowling she believes that trans etc people should have rights but NOT at the expense of hard-won women's rights.

How would trans rights be at the expense of women's rights?

 

[oggbashan]

How would trans rights be at the expense of women's rights?

1. Making toilets unisex so men, women and trans people could use any. Already most women's toilets have a longer queue than the men's so the queues for women would be even longer.

2. Insisting that trans women are eligible for all women's sports even when the trans person's body strength is much more than almost any woman.

3. Making women-only spaces also available for people who say they are female. There have been several cases of women being attacked by men who have self-declared to be female but still have a male sex drive. That has been the case in female prisons where trans people have been placed because they would be in danger in a male prison.

There are more...

 

[pecksniff]

1. Making toilets unisex so men, women and trans people could use any. Already most women's toilets have a longer queue than the men's so the queues for women would be even longer.

I believe that's only because women have smaller bladders that need emptying more often.

 

[oggbashan]

I believe that's only because women have smaller bladders that need emptying more often.

Perhaps. But whenever I go to a cinema or theatre, I am in and out of the toilet in usually half the time my wife takes, yet I am disabled and she isn't. She has to queue. I don't.

She complains that whenever she has to use a unisex toilet the seat is splattered with male urine.

PS. The town of Bayeux, Normandy, France, has the ideal solution. Next to the main car and coach park are a range of cubicles. Some are marked 'pissoirs' for male peeing; some as unisex; and some for women only. When a coach arrives, there are enough cubicles for a whole coach load.

 

[pecksniff]

What's the point of getting the Tories out if the UK just ends up with Blair Lite?

Really, what has happened to Labour?! Do the voters have no socialist option any more?!

 

[pecksniff]

And who are these Liberal Democrats? I can never tell whether their politics are to the left of Labour or to the right of it.

 

[oggbashan]

Really, what has happened to Labour?! Do the voters have no socialist option any more?!

Not really. Jeremy Corbyn was too far left to attract swing voters. Starmer is too centrist for those in the Labour Party who supported Corbyn. The Labour Party is trying to move more to the centre but too many of its supporters don't want the centre - they want extreme left.