The End of the Rhetorical Line? The ‘Partygate’ Investigation into former UK Prime Minister,Boris Johnson

In dramatic and unprecedented circumstances, a former British Prime Minister has been investigated by the House of Commons Privileges Committee for breaking laws set by his own government by socialising and partying whilst the rest of the country toiled during the Covid lockdowns. The lockdown laws were clear, saying we ‘must stay at home, protect the NHS, and save lives’. Socialising of any kind was outlawed, with high fines imposed. Yet, for Boris Johnson, it was unclear whether such restrictions applied to his administration. After the submission of evidence from witnesses in Number Ten and testimony from the defendant himself, a ground-breaking verdict that will reverberate around Westminster and the Conservative Party for months and years to come was delivered—namely, that Boris Johnson knowingly misled Parliament on multiple occasions about the social activities and that he should be held in contempt of Parliament. The fallout of this verdict will cause division within the Conservative Party and will remind voters of a lengthy period most would rather forget. This article reviews the circumstances of the committee proceedings, the evidence presented, the outcome and how this impacts negatively upon trust in politics which, prior to these proceedings, was already at a low point.     

约翰逊政府的对印尼政策（1964—1965年）

美国对印尼政策历来缺乏一个稳定的基础。如何判断苏加诺政权的性质并据此制订美国的政策,始终是困扰美国决策者的一大难题。进入1960年代后,高度紧张的地区局势与苏加诺激进政策更是构成了对约翰逊政府政治与决策资源的挑战。美国对苏加诺政权性质和对外政策意图判断的演变,是促成约翰逊政府改变对印尼政策的重要环节。这一认知过程大致经历了三个阶段:苏加诺间接挑战了美国在东南亚的利益;苏加诺蓄意采取了与美国为敌的政策;苏加诺与共产党国家结成了针对美国的政治联盟。美国的政策也相应由促成印尼与西方国家关系的缓和转向削弱苏加诺政权政治统治的基础。     

约翰逊政府与美国的越南战争困境(1967-1968)

1964年约翰逊政府通过制造"东京湾事件",把肯尼迪的"特殊战争"升级为以大规模轰炸北越为特点的"有限战争".战争的结果引发了美国国内一系列的政治、经济和社会危机,美国自身的国力也受到极大的削弱,最后民主党人和整个国家都为越南战争付出了沉重的代价.本文拟探讨约翰逊政府在执政的最后两年如何试图摆脱越南战争的困境,并分析其不能根本解决问题的主要原因.     

Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital – Parliamentary Intention and Damages Caused by Maladministration of a Contractual Dismissal Procedure

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58 [2012] 2 W.L.R. 55 the Supreme Court addressed the following question: is an employee, who can establish that (a) if a contractual disciplinary process had been correctly administered he would have been exonerated, and (b) thereafter employed until retirement, able to sue for loss of the earnings that he would have acquired until retirement? Three members of the Supreme Court held that such a remedy was not reconcilable with the enactment, originally in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, of a statutory unfair dismissals protection regime. It was Parliament's intention that an employee should not be able to outmanoeuvre the statute's compensation limitation rules by deploying a superior common law remedy. This note considers that reading of Parliament's intention.