Boris Johnson changes ministerial code to avoid need to resign over breaches

[muriel_volestrangler]

Boris Johnson is changing the rules to let ministers avoid resigning if they break the ministerial code, allowing them to apologise or temporarily lose their pay instead.

The prime minister, who is facing claims of breaching the code, published a policy statement on Friday saying it is “disproportionate to expect that any breach, however minor, should lead automatically to resignation or dismissal”.

A new version of the ministerial code has been published, suggesting that in future ministers are likely to face making a “public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period” if they retain the confidence of the prime minister.
...
Nick Timothy, a former adviser to Theresa May, said: “If any Tory MPs are labouring under the impression that the PM might listen, learn or change, amending the ministerial code so he’s not expected to quit when he breaks it ought to … clinch the argument.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/27/boris-johnson-changes-ministerial-code-to-remove-need-to-resign-over-breaches

The other parties are condemning this too, of course, but I thought the reaction from Timothy - a Tory who thinks "conservative" actually means giving some respect to long-established rules and customs - is notable.

Johnson is now in full Trump mode - "fill your boots, there'll be no need to resign if you get caught! Screw responsibility, accountability, morality or maturity - the Cabinet is now the Bullingdon Club! Here's to never becoming an adult!"

[Irish_Dem]

1. The best sociopaths don't break the law, they make it.

[Karadeniz]

2. How very Republican! Remember when Newt Gingrich, for a $50M donation to the GOP, changed

all the environmental laws the Koch brothers had been charged with?

[barbaraann]

3. I can think of someone in our country who doesn't want to become an adult and doesn't comb his hair.

Hint: Kentucky

[bucolic_frolic]

4. In essence adjudicating his own case

Is British jurisprudence slipping a notch?