Reshuffle

A man of the people who completely gets why the lads and lassies in the north are so aggrieved.

"He was born in 1980 in Southampton in Hampshire, and studied at the exclusive private school Winchester College.

Mr Sunak then went on to Oxford University to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics, a tried and trusted route for aspiring Westminster politicians. He also studied for an MBA at Stanford University.

Before entering politics he worked for investment bank Goldman Sachs and a hedge fund, then co-founded an investment firm.

His wife - Akshata Murthy - is the daughter of Indian billionaire and co-founder of IT services giant Infosys Narayana Murthy."

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

It seems Johnson will allow no dissenting voices.

Fabulous

The Spads were all warned weeks ago that the leaks and offline briefings have to stop. I think what Johnson is trying to avoid is that toxic atmosphere that can develop between Number 10 and Number 11. You only have to look at the Blair/Brown and May/Hammond relationships to see how damaging that can become. Johnson wants everyone to be pulling in the same direction. The story that Peter Parker alluded to last week, the so-called infighting between Cummins and Johnson's girlfriend, came from Number 11. There have also been other offline briefings especially about things like Mansion Tax etc, that have come from Number 11.
Johnson has put a stop to that potential damaging situation occurring.
If you look at Johnson's time as Mayor of London, you'll see that he appoints people to jobs, and then let's them get on with it. He doesn't micro manage. However, he expects those people to do a good job and if they don't, then they are out in quick time and replaced with someone else. Can't argue with that approach really.
It's probably wrong to allude to 'dissenting voices'. It's more to do with the fact that he wants everyone on the same side to achieve what he wants. It makes sense. He doesn't want another Blair/Brown, May/Hammond relationship, where Number 11 is openly working against the wishes of Number 10.

Is that the point though?

It's the alternative

Christ, is it?

You are absolutely correct in saying that if I had leaked confidential information from board meetings I would have been hung, drawn and quartered. And rightly so.
But you miss the point.
There was no evidence produced of any wrong doing. Nothing, zilch.
Her crime was to keep in contact with a former work colleague from the same department she worked in. Who has not done that? There was no evidence she leaked anything to that person.
As for the BBC, yes I agree their funding needs to be looked at and most likely the old method is way past its sell by date. But let's have that discussion within that prism, not whether they watered off this or that party, as a Brit I rather hope they do.

As for the Supreme Court, there was a very interesting conversation with Charlie Faulkner QC, Jonathan Sumption, ex Judge.
The conclusion was that there is a potential drift from the law into the political arena. But, interestingly, the judicial review initiated by Gina Miller was not that, as her review resulted in the Supreme Court upholding the Sovereignty of Parliament, which is crucial to our constitution and democracy.

Again, on Prorogation. That decision upheld the Sovereignty of Parliament.
On evidence, yes, evidence in court. But in the court of public opinion you cannot, equally, assert that she was guilty.

Why did she not go to tribunal.
I have no idea, but I can imagine Javid sitting her down and say
"Look, it's wrong, and I am sorry. But politically I need this to go away. We part as friends, here is your reference and here is a wedge."

Seems most likely to me.