Also interesting, from the article-> “Under changes to the guidance, Johnson also rejected the idea that his independent adviser should have the power to launch investigations into ministers or the prime minister without his permission.
The adviser, currently Christopher Geidt, a former aide to the Queen, will in future be able to instigate investigations but only with the consent of the prime minister, who will retain the power to block an inquiry. In such a case, the adviser would have the power to make this situation public.”
Why the hell is no one talking about his connection to Evgeny Lebedev !?
Is this guy even trying anymore?
Imagine not having a constitution.
Didn’t expect anything else from Brexit Boris.
very convenient..
Incoming Boris/corruption apologism
Corrupt fucker.
This title is untrue and the article deeply misleading. It is heavily (and incorrectly) implying that Boris changed code from any breach = resign, to any breach != resign. This is untrue. It was already the case under the old code that not all breaches mandated resignations.
As a quick control-f on ‘resign’ will show, the only time resignation is mandated is “Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;”
That is still in the new version.
What the new version adds is a section on what other penalties can be applied to a breach.
>Where the Prime Minister determines that a breach of the expected standards has occurred, he may ask the Independent Adviser for confidential advice on the appropriate sanction. The final decision rests with the Prime Minister. Where the Prime Minister retains his confidence in the Minister, available sanctions include requiring some form of public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period.
But, as I pointed out, the existence of such sanctions is not new and was also true under the old code even if there wasn’t a section setting out the remedies.
For example, writing last year under the old code, Lord Geidt (Independent Adviser on ministerial interests) said
>I believe that the Independent Adviser can play an important role in providing recommendations for the Prime Minister to consider. I am conscious that it has become commonplace to assume that any proven breach of the Ministerial Code should lead to a Minister’s resignation or dismissal. I agree with Lord Evans that this is disproportionate. The Code itself leaves room for interpretation, it is a mixture of broad principles, guidance and procedures. I believe its status is likely to be enhanced by a more proportionate approach to sanctions.
And, indeed, he went onto to apply that logic under the old code when he found only a non deliberate “minor breach of the Ministerial Code” by Hancock, which did not lead to a resignation.
What an asshat clown? Conservatives are cheaters, Johnson is no different.
Let’s just remind ourselves that French politicians are immune from criminal charges until they finish their term in office, and nobody talks about that.
You got to love the rules apply to you but not to me people, usually they’re super honest /s
13 comments
Also interesting, from the article-> “Under changes to the guidance, Johnson also rejected the idea that his independent adviser should have the power to launch investigations into ministers or the prime minister without his permission.
The adviser, currently Christopher Geidt, a former aide to the Queen, will in future be able to instigate investigations but only with the consent of the prime minister, who will retain the power to block an inquiry. In such a case, the adviser would have the power to make this situation public.”
Why the hell is no one talking about his connection to Evgeny Lebedev !?
Is this guy even trying anymore?
Imagine not having a constitution.
Didn’t expect anything else from Brexit Boris.
very convenient..
Incoming Boris/corruption apologism
Corrupt fucker.
This title is untrue and the article deeply misleading. It is heavily (and incorrectly) implying that Boris changed code from any breach = resign, to any breach != resign. This is untrue. It was already the case under the old code that not all breaches mandated resignations.
The original version can be seen here: https://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/2019-MINISTERIAL-CODE-FINAL.pdf
As a quick control-f on ‘resign’ will show, the only time resignation is mandated is “Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister;”
That is still in the new version.
What the new version adds is a section on what other penalties can be applied to a breach.
>Where the Prime Minister determines that a breach of the expected standards has occurred, he may ask the Independent Adviser for confidential advice on the appropriate sanction. The final decision rests with the Prime Minister. Where the Prime Minister retains his confidence in the Minister, available sanctions include requiring some form of public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1079310/Ministerial_Code.pdf
But, as I pointed out, the existence of such sanctions is not new and was also true under the old code even if there wasn’t a section setting out the remedies.
For example, writing last year under the old code, Lord Geidt (Independent Adviser on ministerial interests) said
>I believe that the Independent Adviser can play an important role in providing recommendations for the Prime Minister to consider. I am conscious that it has become commonplace to assume that any proven breach of the Ministerial Code should lead to a Minister’s resignation or dismissal. I agree with Lord Evans that this is disproportionate. The Code itself leaves room for interpretation, it is a mixture of broad principles, guidance and procedures. I believe its status is likely to be enhanced by a more proportionate approach to sanctions.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/990421/Report_by_the_Independent_Adviser_May_2021__1_.pdf
And, indeed, he went onto to apply that logic under the old code when he found only a non deliberate “minor breach of the Ministerial Code” by Hancock, which did not lead to a resignation.
What an asshat clown? Conservatives are cheaters, Johnson is no different.
Let’s just remind ourselves that French politicians are immune from criminal charges until they finish their term in office, and nobody talks about that.
You got to love the rules apply to you but not to me people, usually they’re super honest /s
This… this isn’t Newsthump is it?