Quizzes & Puzzles55 mins ago
Lord Geidt Resigns
72 Answers
The PM’s Ethics Adviser has had enough it seems.
https:/
I guess Partygate and changing the ministerial code, along with the dodgy dealings over the flat refurb have led him to the end of his tether with Johnson, understandably so.
It’ll be weeks now for Johnson, not months.
https:/
I guess Partygate and changing the ministerial code, along with the dodgy dealings over the flat refurb have led him to the end of his tether with Johnson, understandably so.
It’ll be weeks now for Johnson, not months.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FatticusInch. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
bryan, you haven't returned to your thread from yesterday:
https:/
https:/
ToraToraTora
//bryan, you haven't returned to your thread from yesterday:
https:/
Strangely, neither did you.
https:/
//bryan, you haven't returned to your thread from yesterday:
https:/
Strangely, neither did you.
https:/
From Sky News.
Labour's response to the Lord Geidt letter
Angela Rayner, Labour's deputy leader, has responded to Lord Geidt's resignation letter.
She said: "Lord Geidt walked out because of the odious behaviour of Boris Johnson's Downing Street.
This prime minister has, in his own adviser's words, made a mockery of the ministerial code. He has now followed both his predecessor and the anti-corruption tsar out of the door in disgust.
"There are now no ethics left in this Downing Street regime propped up in office by a Conservative Party mired in sleaze and totally unable to tackle the cost of living crisis facing the British people.
"The government must not only appoint a new watchdog but back Labour's plan to restore standards. This prime minister has debased standards and rigged the rules for far too long.
"It is time for the Conservatives to do the right thing and remove him from office."
Then from his own Anti Corruption Tsar.
Former anti-corruption champion responds to Lord Geidt claims
John Penrose, a Conservative MP and the former anti-corruption champion for the prime minister, has criticised Boris Johnson for his actions.
He said: "Lord Geidt confirms my concerns the PM failed to follow Nolan Principles (particularly leadership) over partygate Ministerial Code, & then goes even further. This is *not* OK - the Code matters!"
In his resignation letter to Mr Johnson, former ethics chief Lord Geidt criticised the PM for not addressing criticisms in the Sue Gray "about your adherence to the Nolan Principles (on leadership, in particular)".
The seven principles are: Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
Reference to the principles was removed from the foreword to the ministerial code last month, but they remain in the code's annex.
Sums everything up about this PM.
Labour's response to the Lord Geidt letter
Angela Rayner, Labour's deputy leader, has responded to Lord Geidt's resignation letter.
She said: "Lord Geidt walked out because of the odious behaviour of Boris Johnson's Downing Street.
This prime minister has, in his own adviser's words, made a mockery of the ministerial code. He has now followed both his predecessor and the anti-corruption tsar out of the door in disgust.
"There are now no ethics left in this Downing Street regime propped up in office by a Conservative Party mired in sleaze and totally unable to tackle the cost of living crisis facing the British people.
"The government must not only appoint a new watchdog but back Labour's plan to restore standards. This prime minister has debased standards and rigged the rules for far too long.
"It is time for the Conservatives to do the right thing and remove him from office."
Then from his own Anti Corruption Tsar.
Former anti-corruption champion responds to Lord Geidt claims
John Penrose, a Conservative MP and the former anti-corruption champion for the prime minister, has criticised Boris Johnson for his actions.
He said: "Lord Geidt confirms my concerns the PM failed to follow Nolan Principles (particularly leadership) over partygate Ministerial Code, & then goes even further. This is *not* OK - the Code matters!"
In his resignation letter to Mr Johnson, former ethics chief Lord Geidt criticised the PM for not addressing criticisms in the Sue Gray "about your adherence to the Nolan Principles (on leadership, in particular)".
The seven principles are: Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.
Reference to the principles was removed from the foreword to the ministerial code last month, but they remain in the code's annex.
Sums everything up about this PM.
In case anyone is interested....
"Dear Prime Minister,
I appeared before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in Parliament yesterday. I was glad for the opportunity to give an account of the recent changes to the Ministerial Code, to the Terms of Reference of the Independent Adviser, and to the support for the office of the Independent Adviser.
I was asked at length about my recent Annual Report. I alluded to my frustration, as made clear in my Preface, that you had not made any public reference to your own conduct under the Ministerial Code in the period since inquiries were underway. This would be especially important in the event that the Metropolitan Police found against you, which they did, and/or that Sue Gray’s report included criticism of behaviour within the scope of the Ministerial Code, which it did.
Your letter in response to my Annual Report was welcome. It addressed the absence of comment by you about your obligations under that Ministerial Code up until that point. You explained that, by paying a Fixed Term Penalty, you had not breached the Ministerial Code. The letter did not, however, address specifically the criticism in Sue Gray’s report about your adherence to the Nolan Principles (on leadership, in particular). Neither did the letter make mention that, despite being repeatedly questioned in the House of Commons about your obligations under the Ministerial Code (after paying a Fixed Penalty Notice), your responses again made no reference to it.
I reported to the Select Committee yesterday that I was satisfied that you had responded to my Annual Report to explain your position. I am disappointed, however, that the account you gave was not fuller, as noted above. Moreover, I regret the reference to ‘miscommunication’ between our offices, with the implication that I was somehow responsible for you not being fully aware of my concerns. These inconsistencies and deficiencies notwithstanding, I believed that it was possible to continue credibly as Independent Adviser, albeit by a very small margin.
This week, however, I was tasked to offer a view about the Government’s intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position. My informal response on Monday was that you and any other Minister should justify openly your position vis-a-vis the Code in such circumstances. However, the idea that a Prime Minister might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own Code is an affront. A deliberate breach, or even an intention to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the Code to suit a political end. This would make a mockery not only of respect for the Code but licence the suspension of its provisions in governing the conduct of Her Majesty’s Ministers. I can have no part in this. Because of my obligation as a witness in Parliament, this is the first opportunity I have had to act on the Government’s intentions. I therefore resign from this appointment with immediate effect.
Yours Sincerely
The Rt Hon Lord Geidt
Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests"
"Dear Prime Minister,
I appeared before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in Parliament yesterday. I was glad for the opportunity to give an account of the recent changes to the Ministerial Code, to the Terms of Reference of the Independent Adviser, and to the support for the office of the Independent Adviser.
I was asked at length about my recent Annual Report. I alluded to my frustration, as made clear in my Preface, that you had not made any public reference to your own conduct under the Ministerial Code in the period since inquiries were underway. This would be especially important in the event that the Metropolitan Police found against you, which they did, and/or that Sue Gray’s report included criticism of behaviour within the scope of the Ministerial Code, which it did.
Your letter in response to my Annual Report was welcome. It addressed the absence of comment by you about your obligations under that Ministerial Code up until that point. You explained that, by paying a Fixed Term Penalty, you had not breached the Ministerial Code. The letter did not, however, address specifically the criticism in Sue Gray’s report about your adherence to the Nolan Principles (on leadership, in particular). Neither did the letter make mention that, despite being repeatedly questioned in the House of Commons about your obligations under the Ministerial Code (after paying a Fixed Penalty Notice), your responses again made no reference to it.
I reported to the Select Committee yesterday that I was satisfied that you had responded to my Annual Report to explain your position. I am disappointed, however, that the account you gave was not fuller, as noted above. Moreover, I regret the reference to ‘miscommunication’ between our offices, with the implication that I was somehow responsible for you not being fully aware of my concerns. These inconsistencies and deficiencies notwithstanding, I believed that it was possible to continue credibly as Independent Adviser, albeit by a very small margin.
This week, however, I was tasked to offer a view about the Government’s intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position. My informal response on Monday was that you and any other Minister should justify openly your position vis-a-vis the Code in such circumstances. However, the idea that a Prime Minister might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own Code is an affront. A deliberate breach, or even an intention to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the Code to suit a political end. This would make a mockery not only of respect for the Code but licence the suspension of its provisions in governing the conduct of Her Majesty’s Ministers. I can have no part in this. Because of my obligation as a witness in Parliament, this is the first opportunity I have had to act on the Government’s intentions. I therefore resign from this appointment with immediate effect.
Yours Sincerely
The Rt Hon Lord Geidt
Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests"
Lord Geidt’s resignation from Boris’s perspective.
Boris would never dream of resigning from his job, no matter what he does.
Therefore Boris thinks Lord Geidt must have committed some pretty heinous act to believe he should resign from his job.
Boris is probably grateful for his resignation, not wanting such a person connected with his government.
Boris would never dream of resigning from his job, no matter what he does.
Therefore Boris thinks Lord Geidt must have committed some pretty heinous act to believe he should resign from his job.
Boris is probably grateful for his resignation, not wanting such a person connected with his government.
A bit like the ECHR which arose in the fifties after the second world war to give proection to ordinary people from fascist states.
Of course, the Euro- is a bit of a dog-whistle - a bit like the paed- prefix mistakenly thought by the ignorant to mean that they should attack innocent baby-doctors etc.
What a world!
We've even got people here who pretend to think that Johnson is not a serial liar.
Of course, the Euro- is a bit of a dog-whistle - a bit like the paed- prefix mistakenly thought by the ignorant to mean that they should attack innocent baby-doctors etc.
What a world!
We've even got people here who pretend to think that Johnson is not a serial liar.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles77 mins ago
ChatterBank82 mins ago
A Clash Between Congressional Lawmakers
News106 mins ago
Crosswords108 mins ago
How it Works131 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.