The problem we face is that the choice seems binary.
Incompetent vandals “running” the UK. Trashing its security, prosperity & well-being, with epic cluelessness.
Or an organised gang, doing the same, efficiently - for its narrow group advantage.
Is there a third way?
A🧵/1.
By now, there’s no safe way out.
Unless the party system is overridden. For the greater good.
The solution must happen fast. The scale of the damage being inflicted is great, & cumulative. The external political & security environment is deteriorating.
Time is short. /2.
That, of course means, Boris Johnson must go. And soon.
But no past or present member of the Johnson cabinet is acceptable as a replacement. Or as a cabinet minister. /3.
So Mr Johnson wants to stay on as PM even if he’s kicked out as Party leader.
Typical of the desperate solipsist.
But he has a point.
The Party can go hang, if he can command a majority in the House of Commons.
How would he achieve that?
A 🧵/1.
Given how distrusted & disliked he is: with a high degree of certainty, no way.
But imagine, just imagine, he had the integrity & insight to understand he’s been wrecking the country by pandering to an extremist minority (a majority of his MPs).
And that he has to stop it. /2.
If he ditched the extremists, & took around one third of his MPs with him to strike a deal with the opposition parties, he could be instrumental in creating a new government, right now, to save the country.
It’s pretty much impossible to see how he could remain PM. /3.
One which can bring down a uniquely dangerous PM. We’ve never seen anything remotely like it since 1940. Then it was dealt with by Parliament (with much action behind the scenes).
Sue Gray has a choice.
Why?
Because she’s in a position, like it or not, to eject the PM. /2.
Or fail to do so (& live with the knowledge that she didn’t when she had the chance).
Nothing is certain.
It’s a penalty shot which could be missed. The chances of that aren’t high.
The probability of failure to convert her opportunity if the shot isn’t taken is 100%. /3.
If you were truly sorry, @katejosephs, you’d have said this two years ago. And you’d resign. Now.
Your Twitter profile says you’re a “proud public servant”.
The pride many thousands of us have felt, at all levels of seniority, serving our country, is sullied by your misconduct.
For anyone thinking this is all a storm in a teacup, or a minor transgression, you’re entitled to your opinion. I strongly disagree with you. Here’s a brief, extra bit of context👇
Under the UK’s peculiar constitutional arrangements, The Queen is required (or assumed by convention to be required) to heed, & act on, the advice of her PM.
She is considered, under the same conventions, to have the right to be consulted, to encourage & to warn./2.
In the case of Prince Andrew giving up his military ranks & roles, his patronages & use of “HRH”, that means:
(a) The Queen is required to agree to those steps if the PM advises them
(b) the same goes for the timing
(c) she can’t take them without the PM’s agreement
The Home Secretary, reporting to the PM, is responsible for MI5.
There are no circumstances, without their permission, in which MI5 would pass to the Speaker a high profile warning about foreign agents active in Parliament.
Nor would MI5, if instructed by them, refuse to./1.
More specifically, if MI5 advised it shouldn’t be done, the Home Secretary/ PM could direct them nonetheless to do so. And MI5 would have to.
If MI5 thought it illegal, they would have to refuse. But that looks irrelevant in the current Chinese agent case. /2.
MI5 “self-actuates”, within its mandate, on much of its work.
Any security expert would tell you it has to be that way, for very good practical reasons.
But not on political matters. Least of all on high profile public announcements. /3.