minininja wrote:What's worrying me is the question of what happens next if Johnson goes, because almost all of the criticism is being aimed specifically at him as if the only problems are his personal moral failings, and not wider issues of Tory policy and ideology. It feels like it will be too easy for the establishment to sweep away everything that's going wrong as "well that all happened under Boris, let's not talk about it any more".

Spearthrower wrote:

minininja wrote:What's worrying me is the question of what happens next if Johnson goes, because almost all of the criticism is being aimed specifically at him as if the only problems are his personal moral failings, and not wider issues of Tory policy and ideology. It feels like it will be too easy for the establishment to sweep away everything that's going wrong as "well that all happened under Boris, let's not talk about it any more".

Well, sure, but that's because it isn't Tory policy and ideology that is 'on trial' so to speak. It's the potentially illegal, and certainly morally questionable decisions made by specific members of the administration including Johnson.

Tortured_Genius wrote:Hahahahahahaha- Theresa May questions Boris Johnson over lockdown rules (BBC Video)

Almost as good as if she'd pulled out a knife and hurled it straight into his back...

Matt_B wrote:For a serious answer, MPs benefit from Parliamentary Privilege, which is the freedom to say whatever they want without fear of the legal consequences from slander, contempt of court or breaching the official secrets act. This encourages more open debate, albeit at the price of allowing them to tell bare face lies as Johnson frequently does, among others.

The only restriction is that they must not use 'unparliamentary language.' 'Misled' is a word categorized as such, alongside many more.

Spearthrower wrote:I'm aware that it's proscribed language, and I am aware that the accusation/implication of lying is serious because a minister who is shown to have lied to parliament is expected to resign or be sacked, but neither of these quantities help address a scenario in which all the evidence supports the conclusion that the PM's statements to Parliament were shown not to be true - how are other MP's meant to challenge this repeated behavior if they're not allowed to characterize it?

On top of that, were we to strictly talk just semantics, the concept of misleading someone doesn't necessarily imply that it was done intentionally, thus the insistence of the addition of 'inadvertently' is pointless as it actually offers no further meaning. If I am ignorant and I tell you something wrong in honest belief that I am right, then I am misleading you regardless of my intentions.

Matt_B wrote:
It might be the expectation that a minister who has lied to parliament be sacked or resign but I'm not sure why as, in practice, the only person who can make such a call is the Prime Minister.

Matt_B wrote:It might say so in the Ministerial Code, but anyone who actually read the thing would soon conclude that there's little semblance between it and reality, and that's been the case since long before Johnson took office.

Matt_B wrote:If you want to accuse someone of lying in the Parliament there's absolutely nothing stopping you though, so long as you choose your language carefully. The best way to go about it is just to quote your opponent and present evidence that contradicts what they said. It'll then go on the record for everyone to read and be reported upon by anyone in the wider media who cares. It's a bit like the FUA here; attack the argument, not the person.

Matt_B wrote:

On top of that, were we to strictly talk just semantics, the concept of misleading someone doesn't necessarily imply that it was done intentionally, thus the insistence of the addition of 'inadvertently' is pointless as it actually offers no further meaning. If I am ignorant and I tell you something wrong in honest belief that I am right, then I am misleading you regardless of my intentions.

Sure, the rules are inflexible and a bit of a joke in themselves because they just lead to a list of proscribed words without much accounting for context. Rather, it's more about slapping a veneer of civility over an institution that's decidedly not and, despite the intent, still allows considerable room for personal insults.

Earlier on, for instance, Johnson accused Keir Starmer of covering up Jimmy Saville's abuses and that went unsanctioned because no unparliamentary language was used and Parliamentary Privilege frees him from any legal consequences. I'm pretty sure that most people would consider that a far more serious accusation than lying about some parties that everyone already knew about, but it's still within the rules.

Similarly, Blackford only went outside the rules to make a point, not because that was the only way he could express that Johnson's statement was contradictory to events. He had plenty of opportunities to back down too, but chose not to take them.