Johnson must go - irrespective of who were to replace him, preferably NONE of the government Front Bench and many of the Labour Front Bench.
On Tuesday, Lord Geidt appeared in front of the Commons Public Administration Committee
Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser says it is “reasonable” to suggest the prime minister may have breached the ministerial code after being fined for attending a lockdown party in No 10. Lord Geidt did not deny he considered resigning over Mr Johnson’s response to the fine by police.
Speaking to MPs, he said he was “glad” the PM had now addressed “things about which I was frustrated”. Lord Geidt discussed the recent changes to the code and other issues related to his role. The peer told the committee of MPs he believed he had “new powers” to initiate investigations of potential breaches of the code. Updated guidance on his role says he still has to “consult the prime minister who will normally give his consent” for an investigation. Previously, Lord Geidt had to wait until asked by the prime minister to start an investigation.
During the hearing, SNP MP Ronnie Cowan asked Lord Geidt if he would use his new powers to initiate an investigation into the prime minister’s fine.
Lord Geidt said he had never sought to open his own investigation into whether there were breaches of the code at parties in Downing Street during the pandemic. But he said Mr Johnson had been “in potential scope of the code” on several occasions, citing an investigation into the refurbishment of the prime minister’s flat, and senior civil servant Sue Gray’s report into lockdown-busting events.
Last month, in an annual report on ministers’ interests, Lord Geidt there was a “legitimate question” over whether the PM’s fine amounted to a breach of the code. Mr Johnson responded in a letter, insisting “there was no intent to break the regulations” and “I did not breach the code”. Lord Geidt said he had asked the prime minister “to speak up for his own conduct” and was satisfied he had done so in the letter.
One committee member, Labour MP John McDonnell, suggested to Lord Geidt that his role as the PM’s adviser was “little more than a tin of whitewash”.
In reply, Lord Geidt said “how can I defeat the impression that you are suggesting of a cosy, insufficiently independent relationship? It is very hard.”
And Lord Geidt conceded that his role was not truly independent, saying, “I am asset of the prime minister” rather than a “free-orbiting adviser with a different source of authority”.
‘Lord Geidt’s role as the PM’s adviser was “little more than a tin of whitewash”.’ … 
1 Like
What did you expect, though? They’ve got it well sewn up 
Chumocracy in action
He clearly broke the ministerial code, lied about it to Parliament and should be thrown out on his fat sleazy ass if the country is ever to have any self-respect again
2 Likes
Lord Geidt did not give a reason for his departure, but in a statement he said it was the “right thing” to do. It comes a day after he spoke of “frustrations” with the PM’s actions.
A Downing Street source told the BBC that Lord Geidt’s resignation had been a “total surprise and a mystery” to the prime minister, adding: “Only on Monday Lord Geidt asked if he could stay on for six months.”
His predecessor as ethics adviser, Sir Alex Allan, resigned in 2020 after the prime minister overruled him over a report into alleged bullying by Home Secretary Priti Patel.
Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “The prime minister has now driven both of his own handpicked ethics advisers to resign in despair. If even they can’t defend his conduct in office, how can anyone believe he is fit to govern?”
True, Angela, true … 
1 Like
By Chris Mason
Political editor, BBC News
So what do we know about what happened in the last few days?
I’m told that on Monday, Lord Geidt met the prime minister and offered to serve in the job for another six months. He was also asked by Boris Johnson to advise on a commercial decision the government is contemplating - and whether this would breach any existing commitments and so not be in line with the ministerial code. We don’t know the details of this yet, nor if this request contributed to his resignation, but the specific timing of his departure has left No10 baffled, given his commitment to stay.
On Wednesday evening, Lord Geidt phoned the prime minister’s principal private secretary to tell him he was resigning. Mr Johnson was informed of the decision at about 18:30 BST, shortly after finishing a phone call with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The truth is we don’t yet know definitively why Lord Geidt resigned, as his resignation letter has not been published - which itself is unconventional.
The prime minister is expected to write back to Lord Geidt on Thursday morning, and that reply may well be made public.
What we do know is it wasn’t just Partygate that caused headaches: a row about the renovation of the prime minister’s flat led Lord Geidt to rebuke Boris Johnson for showing “insufficient” respect for his role.
And remember, too, Lord Geidt’s predecessor resigned as well. Sir Alex Allan walked out in November 2020 after concluding the Home Secretary Priti Patel had breached the ministerial code, which conventionally results in a resignation or sacking. And yet Ms Patel didn’t leave and the prime minister didn’t sack her.
So twice in a year-and-a-half, the person appointed to oversee ethics and conduct in Mr Johnson’s government has given up.
Something is rotten in the house at No 10 … 
Hi
The UK has a lot of things which need fixing at the moment.
Not a time for distractions
1 Like
The main thing that needs fixing at the moment is that we have a corrupt, self-serving liar as PM
Until that is fixed and we restore our nations integrity and sense of right and wrong, we have no one we can trust at the helm to fix the other things
Johnson’s lack of integrity isn’t a distraction, it’s the cause of a lot of our woes
1 Like
Cabinet Office minister to respond to Commons urgent question about Geidt’s resignation at 10.30am
A Cabinet Office minister will answer an urgent question about the resignation of Lord Geidt at 10.30am in the Commons. The UQ has been tabled by Labour’s Fleur Anderson, the shadow paymaster general, and so we will probably get a reply from Michael Ellis, paymaster general and minister for the Cabinet Office. When a minister is needed in the Commons to make a statement that involve
Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, starts by thanking Lord Geidt for his work. He says he holds him in highest regard. He says Geidt’s letter and the PM’s reply to it will be deposited in the house - ie, published for MPs, which means we will all get the chance to read them - shortly.
Ellis says the powers of the independent adviser on ministers’ interests have changed. He now has the power to initiate an investigation. Ellis says the ministerial code accepts there should be a proportionate range of sanctions available for ministers who break the code. Previously, resignation was theoretically the only sanction. Ellis says it has also been agreed that the adviser will be consulted on changes to the ministerial code.
Ellis has finished. He has not told us anything new about why Geidt resigned.
Empty words from Ellis. We all know that BJ doesn’t “do” rules … 
Lord Geidt’s letter of resignation to Boris Johnson
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.
Whoa … Strong Stuff … 
Boris Johnson’s letter responding to Lord Geidt
Dear Lord Geidt
I was sorry to receive your letter of resignation yesterday. I want to thank you for your service. When we spoke on Monday, you said that you were content to remain until the end of the year. So your letter came as a surprise.
You say that you were put in an impossible position regarding my seeking your advice on potential future decisions related to the Trade Remedies Authority. My intention was to seek your advice on the national interest in protecting a crucial industry, which is protected in other European countries and would suffer material harm if we do not continue to apply such tariffs. This has in the past had cross party support. It would be in line with our domestic law but might be seen to conflict with our obligations under the WTO. In seeking your advice before any decision was taken, I was looking to ensure that we acted properly with due regard to the Ministerial code.
You have carried out your duties admirably under very difficult circumstances. We have discussed the burdens placed on you by this increasingly public role, and the pressures that would be felt by anyone in your position. On behalf of the Government, I would like to renew my thanks for all your work.
BJ plays it down but there’s more to this than meets the eye … 
1 Like
No there isn’t, your just harvesting fake news.
Minor breaches of the ministerial code happen all the time, this bill is about that.
Just remember by this time under your heroes Blair and Brown we had an illegal war and a run on the banks.
2 Likes
Well Bunter isn’t doing bad! Getting us involved in an action that is none of our business and wrecking the economy not to mention screwing BREXIT —
Everyones economy is screwed thanks to the advice from so called “scientists” who were “following the science”.
Sweden is doing OK though.
Brexit isn’t screwed yet, but it will be if we don’t bin the TCA then withdraw from the ECHR. You could do it in a day really, he needs to grow a pair of big kahunas.
No 10 refuses to confirm that Johnson will appoint new ethics adviser to replace Lord Geidt
The Downing Street lobby briefing has just finished, and the prime minister’s spokeperson has refused to confirm that Lord Geidt will definitely be replaced as the PM’s ethics adviser.
The spokeperson said that having a process for ensuring standards are maintained by ministers was “vitally important”.
But he said that Geidt himself had raised a number of issues about how the independent adviser on ministers’ interests operated and he said Boris Johnson wanted to “carefully consider those and reflect on them”.
Asked if it was possible that Geidt would not be replaced, the spokesperson replied:
We have not made a final decision on how best to carry out that function, whether it relates to a specific individual or not, particularly given some of the issues that have been raised recently the prime minister alludes to in his letter. So he will carefully consider that before setting out next steps.
To lose one (ethics adviser) may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness!
To lose three would be incompetent - so it could happen to BJ … 
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jun/16/
This is from Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, on Lord Geidt’s resignation letter.
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.
“mired in sleaze” … 
In a letter seen by BBC News on Friday evening, he elaborated on why he quit.
Lord Geidt told the chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Conservative MP William Wragg, there had been “confusion about the precise cause of my decision”.
Lord Geidt said reports it was related to steel tariffs were a “distraction”. He said his concern expressed in his letter to the PM was “simply one example of what might yet constitute deliberate breaches by the United Kingdom of its obligations under international law”.
In his letter, Lord Geidt added that former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler had represented his position “precisely” when he said, in a BBC interview on Thursday, that he had believed he should not “be asked to give advanced cover to the prime minister where there is contemplation of doing something that may be in breach of international law”.
“My letter has been interpreted to suggest that an important issue of principle was limited to some narrow and technical consideration of steel tariffs,” Lord Geidt wrote. “The cautious language of my letter may have failed adequately to explain the far wider scope of my objection.”
BJ breaking the law … surely not … 
1 Like
Hi
We have a failed political system.
The choice at the last Election was Boris or Corbyn.
It was a no brainer, it had to be Boris, he was less dangerous than Corbyn.
The Conservative party were elected for one thing only. The promise to “Get BREXIT done”. Even that has proved to be a lie.
1 Like
Remainer.
No surprise, glad he’s gone.
1 Like