Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: jeremyp on January 12, 2022, 01:30:37 PM
-
Boris Johnson has been forced to apologise for attending a party during lockdown last year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59967930
So my question is: do the panel (that's you) think he should stay or go?
Ha ha not really. My real question is: how many weeks before he resigns/gets fired? My guess is before the end of March. The person who gets the closest will receive a virtual prize with no real monetary value whatsoever.
-
We need the lying hypocrite to stay as long as possible. Every time he opens his gob he reminds us why we should leave his so-called 'UK'.
-
We need the lying hypocrite to stay as long as possible. Every time he opens his gob he reminds us why we should leave his so-called 'UK'.
Pronounced "yuck".
-
We need the lying hypocrite to stay as long as possible. Every time he opens his gob he reminds us why we should leave his so-called 'UK'.
It's not his UK, it's our UK and some of us have got to continue living in it even if you do run off like cowards.
-
"even if you do run off like
cowards. rational people."
FTFY
-
Now wee Dougie Ross has developed a backbone and called for the tumchie to go.
-
1st of April.
-
He'll be a sad loss, since he's a superb advert for Scottish Independence.
Bearing in mind that his elevation to become the leader of the Fuckwit Tory Party was never going to end well, I just hope that the members of said party reflect on their mistake - although, since it seems that Liz Truss is said to be 'in the frame', there could be further entertainment/chaos to come.
-
.
-
.
-
(https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F932248fe-73e2-11ec-aacf-0736e08b15cd.jpg?crop=2711%2C1807%2C584%2C203&resize=685)
-
.
-
A story in 2 parts
-
Ooft! The Telegraph going for Johnson
https://archive.vn/COy2N
-
.
-
Curious in a week where the PM and a number of his senior staff have been accused of drinking on the job that Grease-Smug should choose 'lightweight' as his invective of choice. It's almost as though he can't really help himself...
O.
-
Curious in a week where the PM and a number of his senior staff have been accused of drinking on the job that Grease-Smug should choose 'lightweight' as his invective of choice. It's almost as though he can't really help himself...
O.
He also suggested that the civil servants who went to the knees up should resign because they are employed. But not the lying incompetent lying racist lying thug shouldn't because he isn't. A venal govt doing venal things egregiously
-
Who'll replace him? My money's on Liz Truss - sensible and a bit boring which has its appeal after Johnson.
-
I'm stuck seeing why anyone would want the job until after the council elections. Of those that might run, I think it might end up between Truss and Sunak with Sunak winning.
The NI Assembly elections are due as well - be very interesting to see what happens there.
-
Waiting for Sue Gray
-
Damn screenreader throwing wob
bly trying to deal with screen shots.
-
Waiting for Sue Gray
Liked the verse.
Just to say, I'm not waiting for Sue Gray. As a civil servant "fixer" I doubt she will determine anything conclusive. Her remit and powers are also very limited. The report will be another waste of paper that BJ will wave around.
Really it's down to Tory MPs to do the best for the country ... and they never do that if they think they might slip, even a little, down the greasy pole.
-
.
-
As the number of parties continually increases, revealing a 'partygate' culture, one wonders if Boris the Liar is channeling both Nero and David Brent.
-
Liked the verse.
Just to say, I'm not waiting for Sue Gray. As a civil servant "fixer" I doubt she will determine anything conclusive. Her remit and powers are also very limited. The report will be another waste of paper that BJ will wave around.
Really it's down to Tory MPs to do the best for the country ... and they never do that if they think they might slip, even a little, down the greasy pole.
At least, I hope she will be able to determine whether the gathering was a party or not. BJ definitely seems to need a visit to the opticians, since he believes that people sittting around with bottles of booze and snacks and nibbles are 'working'.
Perhaps he has a different definition of work from the rest of us. I don't think the people involved were professional food and drink tasters.
-
'A fish rots from the head down'
Somewhat appropriate that it is thought that the origins of this phrase came from Turkey.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fish-rot-from-the-head-down.html
-
This explains it all:
-
Just ffs!
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-operation-save-big-dog_uk_61e1c41ae4b0c6802ee67699
-
Rory Bremner. Being funny. Who knew:
-
Wanting to be seen as big friendly old doggy is totally consistent from somebody posing as a big cherubic cheeky toddler.
-
Just ffs!
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-operation-save-big-dog_uk_61e1c41ae4b0c6802ee67699
I bet it's not the first time number 10 has been the centre of dogging activities.
-
Wanting to be seen as big friendly old doggy is totally consistent from somebody posing as a big cherubic cheeky toddler.
Alastair Campbell thinks we should stop calling him "Boris", as it plays right into his hands. He's not a friendly, somewhat dishevelled bloke; he's a dangerous, corrupt psychopath.
-
Alastair Campbell thinks we should stop calling him "Boris", as it plays right into his hands. He's not a friendly, somewhat dishevelled bloke; he's a dangerous, corrupt psychopath.
That is just ridiculous.
I see from these last two posts that I am correct in staying well away from this topic.
However, I'm just going to post that I think he must stay. As Edwina Currie said on FiveLive last night, Jeremy Hunt would bore the pants off everyone and Lyn Truss (if that's her name) is just a shadow. Okay, I don't watch TV news or anything, but on the radio, she does not appear daily .
The whole thing has been blown up to be as scandalous as possible and will be replaced by the next scandalwaiting round the corner, no doubt.
There is no-one who could take his place and the devil you know is better than the one you don't.
-
That is just ridiculous.
I see from these last two posts that I am correct in staying well away from this topic.
However, I'm just going to post that I think he must stay. As Edwina Currie said on FiveLive last night, Jeremy Hunt would bore the pants off everyone and Lyn Truss (if that's her name) is just a shadow. Okay, I don't watch TV news or anything, but on the radio, she does not appear daily .
The whole thing has been blown up to be as scandalous as possible and will be replaced by the next scandalwaiting round the corner, no doubt.
There is no-one who could take his place and the devil you know is better than the one you don't.
Why do you want a lying racist incompetent sexist thug as PM?
-
Why do you want a lying racist incompetent sexist thug as PM?
:D I think that coud be considered a very mild reply from you!!!
Okay - who would you like to be there instead?!
-
:D I think that coud be considered a very mild reply from you!!!
Okay - who would you like to be there instead?!
Shall we start with someone competent and honest and work up from there, admittedly few in the Tory party currently aspire to either of those attributes, but it would be a start.
Really SD I know you are a Tory but stop trying to defend the clearly indefensible. If you can, try and catch Trevor Phillips on SKY this morning to see just why people are so upset.
-
That is just ridiculous.
I see from these last two posts that I am correct in staying well away from this topic.
However, I'm just going to post that I think he must stay. As Edwina Currie said on FiveLive last night, Jeremy Hunt would bore the pants off everyone and Lyn Truss (if that's her name) is just a shadow. Okay, I don't watch TV news or anything, but on the radio, she does not appear daily .
The whole thing has been blown up to be as scandalous as possible and will be replaced by the next scandalwaiting round the corner, no doubt.
There is no-one who could take his place and the devil you know is better than the one you don't.
Susan
He is a lying and incompetent fuckwit - and a dangerous one, and his party knew what they were getting when they foisted this lying and incompetent fuckwit on the rest of us, so they are all complicit in this as are, in my view, those Tories who voted for Johnson as party leader and for the Tories in the last general election, and for Brexit - the Tory party is rotten to the core and when the likes of Truss is touted as a replacement, and the likes of Rees-Mogg, Baker and Swayne talk bollocks, then the bottom of the barrel has been reached.
No wonder some of us Scots want out of the UK if the majority of the electorate in England (which is where the support for the Tories is primarily based) are still in thrall to this bunch.
-
Shall we start with someone competent and honest and work up from there, admittedly few in the Tory party currently aspire to either of those attributes, but it would be a start.
I agree. I can't think of anyone. Can you? Okay, who else, from which party? How would they get there now? They can't. There would have to be a General Election etc etc. But the problem is immediate and urgent.Really SD I know you are a Tory but stop trying to defend the clearly indefensible. If you can, try and catch Trevor Phillips on SKY this morning to see just why people are so upset.
I quite understand why people are so upset and up in arms, but the almost hysterical views I have heard expressed on FiveLive are neither rational nor practical. Forget the outrage for a moment, and try and post a thoroughly workable immediate solution. I can't. None of it is going to affect me much if at all during my remaining lifetime, but I want the future to be better for my family and greatgrandchildren.
Shutting down now, but will look in on this one tomorrow.
-
NS
I certainly did not vote for Boris. I voted for Jeremy Hunt, but that was because he wasn't Boris.
-
I agree. I can't think of anyone. Can you? Okay, who else, from which party? How would they get there now? They can't. There would have to be a General Election etc etc. But the problem is immediate and urgent.
Then lets have a general election, and hopefully those chunks of the electorate in England who voted Tory for the first time (naively in my opinion) can review their choice now that they can more clearly see what they voted for. Hopefully Scotland would be a Tory-free zone afterwards.
I quite understand why people are so upset and up in arms, but the almost hysterical views I have heard expressed on FiveLive are neither rational nor practical. Forget the outrage for a moment, and try and post a thoroughly workable immediate solution. I can't. None of it is going to affect me much if at all during my remaining lifetime, but I want the future to be better for my family and greatgrandchildren.
Me too - which is why I hope that the current Tory chaos encourages support for Scottish Independence if, as it seems, the majority of the electorate in England are still prepared to support this bunch of dysfunctional chancers.
-
the majority of the electorate in England are still prepared to support this bunch of dysfunctional chancers.
I don't wish to be pedantic (OK perhaps I do) but it's not a majority even in England, where they achieved a 47.2% share in 2019.
-
I don't wish to be pedantic (OK perhaps I do) but it's not a majority even in England, where they achieved a 47.2% share in 2019.
I accept that, so apologies - I'll go for 'enough'.
Even I, which is saying something, felt for the Scottish Tories at being dismissed by Rees-Mogg and Gove: that they don't want Boris the Liar at their forthcoming Conference is telling.
-
NS
I certainly did not vote for Boris. I voted for Jeremy Hunt, but that was because he wasn't Boris.
And yet you are supporting a corrupt lying racist sexist incompetent thug as PM
-
:D I think that coud be considered a very mild reply from you!!!
Okay - who would you like to be there instead?!
I don't really care because I don't vote Tory. You do and are happy with a lying incompetent racist sexist corrupt thug as PM.
-
NS
I certainly did not vote for Boris. I voted for Jeremy Hunt, but that was because he wasn't Boris.
You voted Tory.
-
Then lets have a general election, and hopefully those chunks of the electorate in England who voted Tory for the first time (naively in my opinion) can review their choice now that they can more clearly see what they voted for. Hopefully Scotland would be a Tory-free zone afterwards.
Me too - which is why I hope that the current Tory chaos encourages support for Scottish Independence if, as it seems, the majority of the electorate in England are still prepared to support this bunch of dysfunctional chancers.
But that isn't going to happen in the immediate future, is it? The Tory majority at the moment is large enough to withstand the idea of a General Election and it's wishful thinking to think that everything would turn out the way youwant it to. So, samequestion as before: who should take over now, and how can it be done?
-
You voted Tory.
I voted for my local Tory MP, Sir Desmond Swayne, who, with all his faults, is the best for these parts and the other choices are shadows.
And I don't 'support' Boris, I simply see that there is no other to take his place at the moment and some sort of stability is better than chaos from all parties.
-
So, samequestion as before: who should take over now, and how can it be done?
Someone who isn't a liar, isn't racist, is vaguely competent and isn't corrupt - looking at the leading 'runners and riders' they'll struggle to find anyone who is reassuringly none of these things: I think they'll struggle to find someone since it seems the Tory party is dysfunctional now.
The UK needs to be rid of them, and Scotland needs to be rid of the UK.
-
I voted for my local Tory MP, Sir Desmond Swayne, who, with all his faults, is the best for these parts and the other choices are shadows.
And I don't 'support' Boris, I simply see that there is no other to take his place at the moment and some sort of stability is better than chaos from all parties.
'Boris' is the primary cause of the chaos, and while he remains there will be no stability - how the Tory party ever thought he would not be chaotic beats me, given his history.
-
Someone who isn't a liar, isn't racist, is vaguely competent and isn't corrupt - looking at the leading 'runners and riders' they'll struggle to find anyone who is reassuringly none of these things: I think they'll struggle to find someone since it seems the Tory party is dysfunctional now.
The UK needs to be rid of them, and Scotland needs to be rid of the UK.
That's all very well, but again, it's wishful thinking and just words. The situation is not going to change just like that. If no-one can come up with a name for an actual person who would be prepared to step forward to be voted for and who would, in fact, actually get voted for, is the immediate problem. And that is the reason, I think, that boris will be there for a while longer.
-
That's all very well, but again, it's wishful thinking and just words. The situation is not going to change just like that. If no-one can come up with a name for an actual person who would be prepared to step forward to be voted for and who would, in fact, actually get voted for, is the immediate problem. And that is the reason, I think, that boris will be there for a while longer.
But those voting are, in this case, Tory MPs - and having previously voted for 'Boris', and looking at the likely candidates to replace him, I doubt that we can any confidence in any Tory replacement: though someone who is able to at least tell the truth would be an improvement.
I can't see any immediate prospect of this government falling in the short term, but we can hope it does, and that enough of the electorate in England (which is where the Tory support is mainly located) will see what they have done and vote differently next time.
-
That's all very well, but again, it's wishful thinking and just words. The situation is not going to change just like that. If no-one can come up with a name for an actual person who would be prepared to step forward to be voted for and who would, in fact, actually get voted for, is the immediate problem. And that is the reason, I think, that boris will be there for a while longer.
And yet that means you support a lying racist incompetent racist corrupt thug as PM.
-
'Boris' is the primary cause of the chaos, and while he remains there will be no stability - how the Tory party ever thought he would not be chaotic beats me, given his history.
I'm not sure that he is - he's certainly part of the problem, but the fact that he can be elected as an MP means there's a problem with a considerable portion of the electorate in his constituency; that he can be elected leader of the Tory part is indicative of a shortfall of some sort amongst those party members, and that he can be in place as the leader and still lead the Conservative party to an electoral victory is indicative of the nature of Britain at the moment. That he is where is he is - sociopathically dishonest cockwomble as he is - is a symptom as much as a cause.
O.
-
I'm not sure that he is - he's certainly part of the problem, but the fact that he can be elected as an MP means there's a problem with a considerable portion of the electorate in his constituency; that he can be elected leader of the Tory part is indicative of a shortfall of some sort amongst those party members, and that he can be in place as the leader and still lead the Conservative party to an electoral victory is indicative of the nature of Britain at the moment. That he is where is he is - sociopathically dishonest cockwomble as he is - is a symptom as much as a cause.
O.
The rancid stink from No10 where people wheel a suitcase of booze up to the door the night and morning before Philip's funeral are down to the lead given by the lying racist sexist incompetent corrupt thug. Much as I might disagree with Thatcher - it would not have happened then .
-
I'm not sure that he is - he's certainly part of the problem, but the fact that he can be elected as an MP means there's a problem with a considerable portion of the electorate in his constituency; that he can be elected leader of the Tory part is indicative of a shortfall of some sort amongst those party members, and that he can be in place as the leader and still lead the Conservative party to an electoral victory is indicative of the nature of Britain at the moment. That he is where is he is - sociopathically dishonest cockwomble as he is - is a symptom as much as a cause.
O.
I suspect it is more the case of the electorate in England rather than Britain: the electorate here in Scotland didn't support either Brexit or a Tory UK government.
-
and that he can be in place as the leader and still lead the Conservative party to an electoral victory is indicative of the nature of Britain at the moment.
Is it though?
As I noted before even in England the Tories only achieved 47.2% of the popular vote. And yet they get an 80 seat majority.
This in my mind is where the problem lies. We are in this position because of an electoral system that distorts the representation given to the voters.
We have a system that delivers a whacking majority to a minority party. This is profoundly undemocratic and works against the interests of the voters and I would suggest the interests of the country/UK as a whole.
-
That's all very well, but again, it's wishful thinking and just words. The situation is not going to change just like that. If no-one can come up with a name for an actual person who would be prepared to step forward to be voted for and who would, in fact, actually get voted for, is the immediate problem. And that is the reason, I think, that boris will be there for a while longer.
So you will continue to cheer lead for a lying racist incompetent sexist corrupt thug because the Tory party has nothing better to offer.
-
So you will continue to cheer lead for a lying racist incompetent sexist corrupt thug because the Tory party has nothing better to offer.
Andn nor have you!! I do not cheer for anybody. I'm a practical person and I see the position reasonaly clearly I think. I am not going to vote for the Labour or any other party. First, because locally, there is no support for him/her , then because although the Tories might have had 47% of vote, the other 53% were definitely not all Labour supporters, the Labour Party would not hold together, in my opinion, those who produced the majority for Brexit did not think things through as well as they should have done and unfortunately, that is a closed door now, and however daft and irresponsible the drinks and parties behaviour of the Gove can be frowned on, they still have a huge hold on Government. And I'll probably not be here for the next election anyway!
-
I suspect it is more the case of the electorate in England rather than Britain: the electorate here in Scotland didn't support either Brexit or a Tory UK government.
The nature of the UK's parliamentary system means that there are any number of regions that can point to their own inclinations differing with the parliamentary majority, but we're all (neck-deep) in this together. Another iteration of the same very valid argument for proportional representation of one form or another that keeps never quite coming to the fore.
O.
-
Is it though?
As I noted before even in England the Tories only achieved 47.2% of the popular vote. And yet they get an 80 seat majority.
That 47.2%, whilst not an outright majority, still represents the single largest block of votes; that it's exacerbated by the nature of our electoral system doesn't change the reality that over 47% of the population still though that group was the best choice to run the country.
This in my mind is where the problem lies. We are in this position because of an electoral system that distorts the representation given to the voters.
It exaggerates the small margins to give parliament effective executive power and avoid legislative stagnation, but it also tends toward extremism, and lends itself to two-party stultification.
We have a system that delivers a whacking majority to a minority party. This is profoundly undemocratic and works against the interests of the voters and I would suggest the interests of the country/UK as a whole.
Which is why the Tory party effectively gutted the Lib Dem demand for a vote on PR during the coalition - because when they're in the majority it serves them well, and when they're not it still gives them a shot at power anyway.
O.
-
Bearing in mind that we're lumbered with the Tories for the next few years, and putting aside cynical questions of which Tory as PM would be most likely to lead to a Labour victory at the next election, I'd say that either Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak should replace Johnson. Both seem sensible ans capable.
-
Andn nor have you!! I do not cheer for anybody. I'm a practical person and I see the position reasonaly clearly I think. I am not going to vote for the Labour or any other party. First, because locally, there is no support for him/her , then because although the Tories might have had 47% of vote, the other 53% were definitely not all Labour supporters, the Labour Party would not hold together, in my opinion, those who produced the majority for Brexit did not think things through as well as they should have done and unfortunately, that is a closed door now, and however daft and irresponsible the drinks and parties behaviour of the Gove can be frowned on, they still have a huge hold on Government. And I'll probably not be here for the next election anyway!
There are pieces of lint in my jacket that have more integrity than Johnson. You support a lying racist sexist incimpetent corrupt thug.
-
Bearing in mind that we're lumbered with the Tories for the next few years, and putting aside cynical questions of which Tory as PM would be most likely to lead to a Labour victory at the next election, I'd say that either Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak should replace Johnson. Both seem sensible ans capable.
Indeed. The Tories have a perfectly adequate system for electing an honest, capable and responsible leader.
Far be it from me to say who they should choose, but if they continue with Johnson they will crash their own party, let alone the country.
-
That 47.2%, whilst not an outright majority, still represents the single largest block of votes; that it's exacerbated by the nature of our electoral system doesn't change the reality that over 47% of the population still though that group was the best choice to run the country.
It exaggerates the small margins to give parliament effective executive power and avoid legislative stagnation, but it also tends toward extremism, and lends itself to two-party stultification.
Which is why the Tory party effectively gutted the Lib Dem demand for a vote on PR during the coalition - because when they're in the majority it serves them well, and when they're not it still gives them a shot at power anyway.
O.
Just to point out that that 47% is the figure for England not the UK.
-
Word of the day is ‘sparple’ (14th century): to deflect unwanted attention from one thing by making a big deal of another.
Credit: Susie Dent.
-
Farrow & Ball have released a new colour: Sue Gray.
However it is a very light shade, which means that if spread too thinly it looks like whitewash.
-
There are pieces of lint in my jacket that have more integrity than Johnson. You support a lying racist sexist incimpetent corrupt thug.
Repeating the same list of adjectives ad nauseam isn't going to change anyone's mind; it's just tiresome and immature.
-
Farrow & Ball have released a new colour: Sue Gray.
However it is a very light shade, which means that if spread too thinly it looks like whitewash.
This, otoh, is an amusing post: more like this, and fewer of the other kind, please.
-
Alastair Campbell thinks we should stop calling him "Boris", as it plays right into his hands. He's not a friendly, somewhat dishevelled bloke; he's a dangerous, corrupt psychopath.
That is just ridiculous.
I have just quickly skimmed through all the responses. I think that ypu, Susan, and other respondents have missed the point.
His name is not "Boris". His family, his friends, his wives (and whoever he is not wearing a condom with) all call him "Al" - short for Alexander. "Boris" is one of his given names, as is "de Pfeffel". Together with staged buffoonnery, general untidyness and mild unpredictability he has used the name (which many people associate with mild menace) as a brand. A significant proportion of the electorate voted for the brand not the real - rather unscrupulous Alexander Johnson.
Alistair Campbell is suggesting that we should rip away the pretence and start viewing the man not the brand.
-
Once the idiots in the Conservative party elected the "buffoon brand" for their leader, it just confirmed that the Tories have no integrity, if we did not already know that from many of their immigration policies. But then again Blair showed the Labour party also has no integrity. The Tories seemed to have followed the same game-plan as the delegates in GOP who chose Trump. Both Trump and the buffoon have a certain mass appeal because they are not averse to taking advantage of culture wars to appeal to the voters.
I think culture, beliefs and values are what many people are voting on now - it all seems to have become very emotion-based decision-making, regardless of education or intelligence. The majority of people will probably vote based on self-interest including me. That self-interest may include economic considerations (tax rates and government financial mismanagement) but also certain core principles and values they believe in and therefore will want to see upheld such as freedom of speech and ideas and debate. So people may vote for the party that is most likely to protect the core values they see as important, even where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing and deceit in other areas.
Which leads me unfortunately to the observation that I have voted for my Labour MP in the past elections because she is a good MP and I knew there was little chance of Labour actually winning a General Election under Corbyn and the UK finances being run under hard-left socialist principles. But now, while the Tories are the only party where the buffoon leadership is not opposed to pushing back against the transgender lobby (they scrapped GRA reforms), I guess I may well be voting for a party led by an immoral buffoon - hopefully they will have replaced him by the time the next election rolls round but if they haven't I will have to make a decision at that point as to whether I will vote Tory in the next election if the other parties are still upholding trans ideology to the point where MPs cannot even debate the issue. Restrictions to free speech to this extent, is a far more worrying prospect to me than Boris.
Marsha de Cordova, the Labour MP for Battersea who was the Shadow Women and Equalities Secretary, but had to resign from that role after being harassed online for sharing an article arguing for the retention of women’s sex-based rights. Rosie Duffield was criticised by Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, who seem to have prioritised trans people's feelings over women's rights to privacy and security.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/09/17/ed-davey-boris-johnson-trans-rights/
So I guess I may well see Tory "racism", rule-breaking, financial self-interest and a complete lack of integrity as lower priority issues than the issue of free speech, especially when it comes to discussing protection of women's sex-based rights.
Regarding racism, Asian and black communities are filled with racists so I would probably have more sympathy if Asian and black people get their own house in order while preaching to white people about white privilege, as from where I am standing it looks like many BAME people just play the victim card and take it as a free pass to let themselves off the hook for all the racism they spew out.
-
Restrictions to free speech to this extent, is a far more worrying prospect to me than Boris.
Err......you have been following the PCSC bill proposed by MS Patel and supported by Johnson?
If you are worried about free speech on the basis of the transgender issue, I think you are perhaps missing a bigger picture. Not saying that the TG issue isn't worrying. I am saying the removal of the effective right to protest, and the law that will enable it is a much, much bigger one. For example, the women who protested after the murder by a policeman of Sarah Everard could have been prevented from protesting peacefully after her murder under the new law.
This is the part of the bill I am talking about:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5802/jtselect/jtrights/331/33107.htm
NB Thankfully the Lords have seen the need to push back against the PCSC bill, but we are not out of the woods yet.
-
Err......you have been following the PCSC bill proposed by MS Patel and supported by Johnson?
If you are worried about free speech on the basis of the transgender issue, I think you are perhaps missing a bigger picture. Not saying that the TG issue isn't worrying. I am saying the removal of the effective right to protest, and the law that will enable it is a much, much bigger one. For example, the women who protested after the murder by a policeman of Sarah Everard could have been prevented from protesting peacefully after her murder under the new law.
This is the part of the bill I am talking about:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5802/jtselect/jtrights/331/33107.htm
NB Thankfully the Lords have seen the need to push back against the PCSC bill, but we are not out of the woods yet.
Good point - you are right that the Tories are trying to use the law to shut down criticism, protest, and being held accountable for their actions - so yes we're screwed whoever we vote for.
The outcome of the Colston 4 trial seems to indicate that juries may ignore the letter of the law. Agree though that people will be subjected to a lot of stress an harassment while waiting for the trial. Of course if these issues do not go to a jury trial then we are at the mercy of the judiciary, who seem to have been trying to uphold the law. Which is why the Tories are trying to clip the wings of the judiciary by reforming the process of Judicial Review: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/human-rights/parliamentary-briefing-judicial-review-and-courts-bill-house-of-commons-second-reading
But yes agree with you that Tories are not champions of free speech either:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/dec/15/uk-parliament-pushes-back-on-the-online-safety-bill
"Online Safety Bill: One of the most controversial parts of the draft bill was clause 11, which covered the duty of care that applied to adults: protecting them from legal but harmful content. This caused concern because under the draft bill not only would the culture secretary have a key role in defining such content – meaning Nadine Dorries would, at least technically, have a censorship role over what is acceptable speech online – but it also contained an amorphous threat against freedom of expression."
-
VG and TV
Very interesting posts.
-
John Crace takes aim - albeit the target is so easy to hit it is impossible to miss.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/18/even-under-the-mask-johnson-looked-like-someone-who-knew-the-game-was-up
-
https://twitter.com/MattHighton/status/1483467410078412805?t=RjgNUJ3lWyuUafDNMoKAXg&s=19
-
John Crace takes aim - albeit the target is so easy to hit it is impossible to miss.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/18/even-under-the-mask-johnson-looked-like-someone-who-knew-the-game-was-up
Thanks for highlighting that I'd missed it. The comments were very entertaining, and threw up some Yeats as an extra treat:
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”
-
According to the political editor of The Times, Steven Swinford - a cabinet member said this of their red wall MP's:
'It's pretty sickening. They were only elected because of him. Most of them are a load of fucking nobodies. It's nuts'
As a policy to win friends and influence people I'm not sure calling them "fucking nobodies" will be effective, and that's ignoring the inherent irony in the statement.
-
John Crace takes aim - albeit the target is so easy to hit it is impossible to miss.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/18/even-under-the-mask-johnson-looked-like-someone-who-knew-the-game-was-up
Not the best-written piece by Crace that I've ever read: the "things fall apart" at the beginning of nearly every paragraph rapidly gets tiresome, and I don't think bloodshot pupils are possible: it's the whites of eyes that get bloodshot.
My Tory MP, Mike Penning, has claimed to be "furious" with Johnson, but, while it may be cynical of me, I suspect his fury is manufactured in his own interest, because he's betting on Johnson leaving in disgrace soon, and wants to ingratiate himself with whoever succeeds him. H'e not noted for taking principled stands contrary to his own interests.
-
Not the best-written piece by Crace that I've ever read: the "things fall apart" at the beginning of nearly every paragraph rapidly gets tiresome, and I don't think bloodshot pupils are possible: it's the whites of eyes that get bloodshot.
My Tory MP, Mike Penning, has claimed to be "furious" with Johnson, but, while it may be cynical of me, I suspect his fury is manufactured in his own interest, because he's betting on Johnson leaving in disgrace soon, and wants to ingratiate himself with whoever succeeds him. H'e not noted for taking principled stands contrary to his own interests.
As I have seen pointed out elsewhere the Tory Party survives by getting rid of unpopular leaders, Johnson more than most depends on popularity, since he isn't an ideologue. think Mike Penning is thinking more about voters rather than the next leader since unless they are from outside the cabinet (Jeremy Hunt?), they are still effectively Johnson supporters. It's noticeable how carefully Sunak's support for him has been phrased
-
Tory MP crosses the floor to Labour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60054968
-
Tory MP crosses the floor to Labour
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60054968
Interesting. Although whether this is motivated by concern for his constituents or his own self-interest is open to interpretation. Or it could be both, happily for him.
-
Interesting. Although whether this is motivated by concern for his constituents or his own self-interest is open to interpretation. Or it could be both, happily for him.
I suspect if he was really wanting something for his constituents, he should resign his set and stand for the Labour party in the by election on an 'the parties are over' approach for Boris. But I doubt he will.
-
The rise in inflation is very worrying. Note the RPI which is the index that used to be used is at 7.5%. Anyone that might be thinking of challenging Johnson will be concerned about the impact of this, rising interest rates, the breaking of the triple-lock on pensions. and how all that would play in the May elections.
-
VG and TV
Very interesting posts.
Susan - I was watching PMQ today and Johnson is acting like a schoolboy laughing and making faces as he is being questioned on misleading Parliament and his weak excuses and insincere apologies for holding boozy parties in 10 Downing Street.
Former Cabinet minister and Tory MP David Davies just asked Johnson to go. I think such steps away from the usual blind unthinking political support for their leader is an important step forward. Especially when their leader is smirking and laughing in the House of Commons, at the voting British public.
Many Tory supporters will probably continue to put their blind faith in the concept of Boris the brand as the leader of their country as it can be frightening to lose your beliefs / world view by thinking more critically based on the evidence. Many may prefer to hide their head in wishful thinking and daydreams of a principled Tory leadership, and ignoring the evidence of corruption, mismanagement and incompetence, such as the Boris the Buffoon brand claiming he did not know parties at work were against the rules.
Clearly, he has been advised to keep talking about Brexit, the economy, the vaccine programme on the basis that these will sufficiently compensate for a leader's lack of moral integrity. Does it remind you of something - this faith and belief in an intangible brand that allows you to overlook the bad stuff and focus on the good?
-
I suspect if he was really wanting something for his constituents, he should resign his set and stand for the Labour party in the by election on an 'the parties are over' approach for Boris. But I doubt he will.
He'd have to be selected by the Labour party first, and they would probably select the previous Labour candidate, Lucy Burke.
-
Comment from Paul Kavanagh. https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2022/01/19/johnsons-tears-are-only-for-himself/
-
He'd have to be selected by the Labour party first, and they would probably select the previous Labour candidate, Lucy Burke.
Which doesn't really give him an incentive to resign
-
I just wrote and posted a reply to Ga briella - but it's not here. Here it is again
Susan - I was watching PMQ today and Johnson is acting like a schoolboy laughing and making faces as he is being questioned on misleading Parliament and his weak excuses and insincere apologies for holding boozy parties in 10 Downing Street.
I never listen to PMQs, but today I did! I did wonder what Boris looked like!! I think that was foolish of him to make faces etc, however the words are, I think, the most likely to carry him through. Former Cabinet minister and Tory MP David Davies just asked Johnson to go. I think such steps away from the usual blind unthinking political support for their leader is an important step forward. Especially when their leader is smirking and laughing in the House of Commons, at the voting British public.
Having heard and seen David Davies in person, - I think it was when he wanted to be PM himself, I did not like his approach. In my opinion, he is bitter because he wasn’t elected by Conservatives to be their leader and is still carrying that bitterness instead of letting it go and moving on.Many Tory supporters will probably continue to put their blind faith in the concept of Boris the brand as the leader of their country as it can be frightening to lose your beliefs / world view by thinking more critically based on the evidence.
For me, my support is not blind, it is practical and having considered carefully what the alternatives are both locally, nationally and internationally.Many prefer to hide their head in wishful thinking and daydreams of a principled Tory leadership, and ignoring the evidence of corruption, mismanagement and incompetence, such as the Boris the Buffoon brand claiming he did not know parties at work were against the rules.
Okay, but as I have said quite a few times hereabouts, who exactly would you have to take his place, how would this be done quickly an legally andalso supposing the person you think would be good, it turned out to be someone else entirely?!Clearly, he has been advised to keep talking about Brexit, the economy, the vaccine programme on the basis that these will sufficiently compensate for a leader's lack of moral integrity. Does it remind you of something - this faith and belief in an intangible brand that allows you to overlook the bad stuff and focus on the good?
Unfortunately, it is too often what happens.
-
I just wrote and posted a reply to Ga briella - but it's not here. Here it is again
I never listen to PMQs, but today I did! I did wonder what Boris looked like!! I think that was foolish of him to make faces etc, however the words are, I think, the most likely to carry him through. Having heard and seen David Davies in person, - I think it was when he wanted to be PM himself, I did not like his approach. In my opinion, he is bitter because he wasn’t elected by Conservatives to be their leader and is still carrying that bitterness instead of letting it go and moving on.For me, my support is not blind, it is practical and having considered carefully what the alternatives are both locally, nationally and internationally.Okay, but as I have said quite a few times hereabouts, who exactly would you have to take his place, how would this be done quickly an legally andalso supposing the person you think would be good, it turned out to be someone else entirely?!Unfortunately, it is too often what happens.
I think it's important for accountability as well as credible leadership that the Prime Minister doesn't keep getting caught out blatantly breaking national regulations and following that up by looking like a foolish schoolboy mocking questions at PMQ by smirking and making faces and rolling his eyes.
So at this point if he steps down as leader in order for the Tories to not be seen as a joke, they could probably put Sunak or Javid in his place - they at least seem to know how to conduct themselves in a less buffoon-like manner. They both seem to act like professionals rather than tabloid journalists boozing it up at a party with the boys. Hopefully the novelty has worn off among Tory voters with Johnson's over-grown school-boy, hand caught in the cookie-jar style antics.
Johnson was elected leader before Covid-19 and he has spent a lot of the pandemic treating serious decisions with life or death consequences for ordinary people as a joke. It's time for him to go.
Hopefully the Tories won't replace Johnson with a Z-list celebrity reality star but with the Tories you never know.
-
Blackmail? Colour me unsurprised.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60068612
-
Rory Stewart's take on Boris the Liar (from Guardian Live blog).
Boris Johnson is a terrible prime minister and a worse human being.
But he is not a monster newly sprung from a rent between this world and the next. Twenty years have passed since the Conservative party first selected him as a candidate. Michael Howard and David Cameron made him a shadow minister, and Theresa May gave him the Foreign Office. Thirty years of celebrity made him famous for his mendacity, indifference to detail, poor administration, and inveterate betrayal of every personal commitment.
Yet, knowing this, the majority of Conservative MPs, and party members, still voted for him to be prime minister. He is not, therefore, an aberration, but a product of a system that will continue to produce terrible politicians long after he is gone.
MPs selected him because they would not risk the possibility of a smaller majority under a better leader. Winning mattered more than governing well. And the public often seems to share this indifference
-
Rishi Sunak knifing him from the front
https://archive.vn/xQzQu
-
;D
-
He's been caught lying again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60143279
-
Johnson was piss poor today. Why he thinks repeating the same questionable bollocks about covid response and economic response is what we want to here rather than the game of Tipping Point he finds himself in. I don't know.
The British people surely want to see this cockwomble try to cling on, have his political fingers politically stepped on and then fall of a cliff.
-
He's been caught lying again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60143279
'...it has been suggested...'
Thirdperson report ...
I'm not excusing him but the words do not appear to come direct and recorded by him.
-
Not exactly a third person report when it is government e-mails saying that the PM took the decision, although heavily redacted. It is clear that permission was given by the PM. Or somebody got it wrong. Which is more likely I wonder.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/43225/html/
SD I do wonder if you will ever own up to the Conservative Party having chosen a wrong 'un.
-
My impression has always been that Alexander Johnson wants to have been Prime Minister rather wants to be Prime Minister.
It is the least damaging way to transition between these two states that is beyond his comprehension.
-
Not exactly a third person report when it is government e-mails saying that the PM took the decision, although heavily redacted. It is clear that permission was given by the PM. Or somebody got it wrong. Which is more likely I wonder.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/43225/html/
SD I do wonder if you will ever own up to the Conservative Party having chosen a wrong 'un.
The PM did not actually send the e-mail himself. As I have said quite a few times, I did not vote for Boris, but he's the leader we've got and I cannot change that ... ... and my other question remains! Who would you, who in fact could you, have right now?
-
The PM did not actually send the e-mail himself. As I have said quite a few times, I did not vote for Boris, but he's the leader we've got and I cannot change that ... ... and my other question remains! Who would you, who in fact could you, have right now?
I know you didn't vote for him in the ballot, but you voted for him at the GE (I know you'll now play semantics and say you voted for your local MP but it was, in the end, Johnson you voted for) and given his track record up until that point which was well documented by many and observable by the rest of us, it was entirely predictable we would end up here. The point is there are some in the Tory party who would be more suited to the job - none, save perhaps Sunak, who are in the cabinet, unfortunately. He wouldn't be my choice, but then as I'm sure you realise by now I wouldn't choose any Tory.
Perhaps we should go with Rees Mogg's suggestion and have a General Election. He was talking sense for once, even if it was only said to scare the Tory backbenchers into compliance.
-
I know you didn't vote for him in the ballot, but you voted for him at the GE (I know you'll now play semantics and say you voted for your local MP but it was, in the end, Johnson you voted for) and given his track record up until that point which was well documented by many and observable by the rest of us, it was entirely predictable we would end up here. The point is there are some in the Tory party who would be more suited to the job - none, save perhaps Sunak, who are in the cabinet, unfortunately. He wouldn't be my choice, but then as I'm sure you realise by now I wouldn't choose any Tory.
Perhaps we should go with Rees Mogg's suggestion and have a General Election. He was talking sense for once, even if it was only said to scare the Tory backbenchers into compliance.
No, you are wrong in your apparent interpretation of what I thought and felt when voting in last GE. I did not vote for Boris. I voted for my local MP because I know him, have found him to be a good local MP. Of course he, like all human beings, makes mistakes but that's okay. If, as a consequence, Boris is PM then that's not my fault nor was he my choice, but he won the vote and my MP did too.
-
No, you are wrong in your apparent interpretation of what I thought and felt when voting in last GE. I did not vote for Boris. I voted for my local MP because I know him, have found him to be a good local MP. Of course he, like all human beings, makes mistakes but that's okay. If, as a consequence, Boris is PM then that's not my fault nor was he my choice, but he won the vote and my MP did too.
As I said previously I knew you'd try and get around this with a certain amount of disingenuousness. Nobody who voted Conservative at the last election was under any illusion as to who the PM would be. Nobody, if they paid any attention to Mr Johnson's character and history would be under any illusion as to what they were getting. A liar, manipulator, violent bully, and racist.
Your vote helped put him there. Your vote has helped to get us where we are now.
-
As I said previously I knew you'd try and get around this with a certain amount of disingenuousness. Nobody who voted Conservative at the last election was under any illusion as to who the PM would be. Nobody, if they paid any attention to Mr Johnson's character and history would be under any illusion as to what they were getting. A liar, manipulator, violent bully, and racist.
Your vote helped put him there. Your vote has helped to get us where we are now.
Absolutely - it is either unbelievably naive or deeply disingenuous to suggest that voting Tory in 2019 isn't in any way responsible for Johnson being PM. The notion of 'but my local MP is really good' is the classic apologist approach for someone to justify the unjustifiable - I have more respect for someone who is honest that they voted Tory because they preferred Johnson to Corbyn as PM.
-
As I said previously I knew you'd try and get around this with a certain amount of disingenuousness. Nobody who voted Conservative at the last election was under any illusion as to who the PM would be. Nobody, if they paid any attention to Mr Johnson's character and history would be under any illusion as to what they were getting. A liar, manipulator, violent bully, and racist.
Your vote helped put him there. Your vote has helped to get us where we are now.
Sorry but this modern trend of demonising people just because they voted for a Conservative has really got to stop. It's a destructive tactic.
The fact is that Susan voted for her local MP because she thinks he's a good MP. I don't know why you can't take that at face value.
-
Sorry but this modern trend of demonising people just because they voted for a Conservative has really got to stop. It's a destructive tactic.
The fact is that Susan voted for her local MP because she thinks he's a good MP. I don't know why you can't take that at face value.
In what way am I demonising her? I'm asking her to justify her vote. She wants to have it all ways. WE can't change leader because, well I haven't had an answer to that. I'm not responsible because I voted for my local candidate. Yet a general election is called so that a new government can be formed with clearly defined leaders. I don't understand your issue with me challenging her.
If you had been minded to vote Labour at the last election, who would have been uppermost in your mind. Your local candidate or Jeremy Corbyn.
Because I seem to recall you saying that you could not vote Labour because of said leader of the Labour party. Why do you think it is necessary for you to take into account the leader of a party and yet Susan Doris doesn't have to?
-
Sorry but this modern trend of demonising people just because they voted for a Conservative has really got to stop. It's a destructive tactic.
The fact is that Susan voted for her local MP because she thinks he's a good MP. I don't know why you can't take that at face value.
Where is the 'demonising' in Trent's post?
-
As I said previously I knew you'd try and get around this with a certain amount of disingenuousness. Nobody who voted Conservative at the last election was under any illusion as to who the PM would be. Nobody, if they paid any attention to Mr Johnson's character and history would be under any illusion as to what they were getting. A liar, manipulator, violent bully, and racist.
Your vote helped put him there. Your vote has helped to get us where we are now.
BCite one way in which you believe I am disingenuous.
No I did not have any illusions about Boris which is why I was annoyed that he was the leader of the party of which my local MP was a member. But I am a practical person who deals with the situation as it is not what would be an impossible ideal. I am most certainy not a person who tries to evade or get around questions.
If I had failed to vote or had put a cross against another of local candidates ... now that would have been under an illusion that my absence or voting for another would have made any difference.
-
If I had failed to vote or had put a cross against another of local candidates ... now that would have been under an illusion that my absence or voting for another would have made any difference.
As a practical person then surely if enough people of principle decided not to vote for your candidate, a message would have been sent that was much more powerful than your second-hand endorsement of the woeful third-hand PM we have in place at the moment.
As it is all your vote did was endorse somebody you yourself did not want as PM.
-
As a practical person then surely if enough people of principle decided not to vote for your candidate, a message would have been sent that was much more powerful than your second-hand endorsement of the woeful third-hand PM we have in place at the moment.
As it is all your vote did was endorse somebody you yourself did not want as PM.
That's surely though a problem built in to the system? In 2019, I voted SNP because Alison Thewliss is a good MP - if she wasn't I would have spoiled my ballot. Because the SNP are not a UK wide party in no sense would I have been voting for Blackford as PM but in England with FPTP and an effective 2 party state at the time, I don't see SusanDoris voting Tory as an endorsement of Johnson.
-
That's surely though a problem built in to the system? In 2019, I voted SNP because Alison Thewliss is a good MP - if she wasn't I would have spoiled my ballot. Because the SNP are not a UK wide party in no sense would I have been voting for Blackford as PM but in England with FPTP and an effective 2 party state at the time, I don't see SusanDoris voting Tory as an endorsement of Johnson.
Don't know. Rees-Smug says we have a presidential system now.
“It is my view that we have moved, for better or worse, to an essentially presidential system.
“Therefore the mandate is personal rather than entirely party, and that any prime minister would be very well advised to seek a fresh mandate.
Who am I to argue with such a great Tory thinker. My spelling may be off on that last word.
Seriously it is a curious system with as we have discussed elsewhere, very serious shortcomings, but I just don't think hiding behind an "I voted for my local candidate" cuts it anymore. If it ever did.
-
Don't know. Rees-Smug says we have a presidential system now.
Who am I to argue with such a great Tory thinker. My spelling may be off on that last word.
Seriously it is a curious system with as we have discussed elsewhere, very serious shortcomings, but I just don't think hiding behind an "I voted for my local candidate" cuts it anymore. If it ever did.
Rees-Mogg is an unprincipled nubbin of shite.
-
In what way am I demonising her?
In the last post you accused her of disingenuousness for a start. And I wasn't referring solely to Susan or you with my comment.
I'm asking her to justify her vote.
She already has. You just wouldn't accept the answer.
If you had been minded to vote Labour at the last election, who would have been uppermost in your mind. Your local candidate or Jeremy Corbyn.
In my case, the thing that was uppermost in my mind for the last two elections was Brexit. In both cases I voted for the candidate from the party that was closest to a Remain stance.
Because I seem to recall you saying that you could not vote Labour because of said leader of the Labour party. Why do you think it is necessary for you to take into account the leader of a party and yet Susan Doris doesn't have to?
That's my personal motivation. I don't seek to project my motivations onto anybody else. Just because I won't vote for a candidate in a party with a proven incompetent leader doesn't mean Susan has to do the same.
-
Fair enough on your viewpoint.
I'm still not clear on SD's.
SD was not in favour of Johnson, or IIRC Brexit and yet, whether she denies it with "I voted for my Local MP" she endorsed that very candidate and the process of Brexit.
PS you quoted my thread when you talked about demonising so I naturally assumed you meant me. If you didn't, thank you. If you did, you were wrong.
-
PS you quoted my thread when you talked about demonising so I naturally assumed you meant me.
I did mean you but I also meant everybody else who does it. I could have quoted any of several posts on this board but I wanted to respond to your treatment of Susan specifically, as well as make a general comment.
-
I did mean you but I also meant everybody else who does it. I could have quoted any of several posts on this board but I wanted to respond to your treatment of Susan specifically, as well as make a general comment.
Saying you think someone is being disingenuous is not 'demonising' them. You need a sense of proportion, and tgat's not me 'demonising' you.
-
I did mean you but I also meant everybody else who does it. I could have quoted any of several posts on this board but I wanted to respond to your treatment of Susan specifically, as well as make a general comment.
It seems disingenuous to me to claim that I was voting for my MP when YOU ARE AWARE that voting that way does in fact solidify the support for Johnson. You cannot say " I did not vote for Boris." as SD did and deny your vote counted towards his majority. Of course, it did. That is the disingenuousness I was speaking of. That is not demonising her.
Rather like Mr Johnson, SD appears to want to have her cake and eat it. "I voted Conservative but in no way did I vote for Mr Johnson."
Sophistry pure and simple.
-
Fair enough on your viewpoint.
I'm still not clear on SD's.
Like JeremyP, I voted to remain in the EU but it didn't happen, so I could moan and wish things were different for ever and a day, but that is a useless and impractical way of looking at it!
SD was not in favour of Johnson, or IIRC Brexit and yet, whether she denies it with "I voted for my Local MP" she endorsed that very candidate and the process of Brexit.
No, I have never endorsed the process of Brexit and to assume I did is only in your imagination, I'm afraid! But we're stuck with it, so all I can hope for is that things turn out well for the younger generations.
Except when I was a child and dreamed of living in a fairyland - whilst knowing that that was a no-no! - I have never lived in a dream world where things would be just as everyone wanted it. Ah, well!
ETA: the definition of disingenuous is not mild, but realy quite scathing in a way.
-
No, I have never endorsed the process of Brexit and to assume I did is only in your imagination, I'm afraid! But we're stuck with it, so all I can hope for is that things turn out well for the younger generations.
Via your vote for your MP you endorsed Johnson and his oven-ready deal. It's actually living in a dreamland to deny that.
-
Rees-Mogg is an unprincipled nubbin of shite.
Pretty sure there are qualifications to being that and even surer that Mogg lacks even those.
I wonder if the shitstain is guilty of treason. A lawyer would know.
-
'I’m hearing that Boris has told Sue Gray to release her report one word at a time, once per day in the form of a Wordle puzzle.'
-
Pretty sure there are qualifications to being that and even surer that Mogg lacks even those.
I wonder if the shitstain is guilty of treason. A lawyer would know.
In what way do you think he might be guilty of treason?
-
Question for SD. IS your good constituency MP Desmond Swayne?
-
Question for SD. IS your good constituency MP Desmond Swayne?
Yes, my local MP is indeed Sir Desmond Swayn. Now, I'm sure you are now snorting cynically!! And I'm sure you can think of dozens of things you disapprove of, but you don't live here!
-
No. I don't live there. I doubt I'd get much support from him:
"the surest way to protect the public from AIDS is to outlaw homosexuality and lock up offenders"
Also, you were aware that he served you so well by being a member of Leave means Leave.
Way to go to choose someone who reflects your views.
-
No. I don't live there. I doubt I'd get much support from him:
"the surest way to protect the public from AIDS is to outlaw homosexuality and lock up offenders"
Also, you were aware that he served you so well by being a member of Leave means Leave.
Way to go to choose someone who reflects your views.
I do not expect him to reflect' my views. And, as I have said, people make mistakes.
-
In what way do you think he might be guilty of treason?
By declaring Johnson as president while in an office of the Crown perhaps. This is his second attempt overthrowing the
Constitution.
-
Yes, my local MP is indeed Sir Desmond Swayn. Now, I'm sure you are now snorting cynically!! And I'm sure you can think of dozens of things you disapprove of, but you don't live here!
I didn't vote for Boris Johnson but voted for the local MP.
Who is?
Desmond Swayne
Ha ha ha.
-
By declaring Johnson as president while in an office of the Crown perhaps. This is his second attempt overthrowing the
Constitution.
He didn't. It isn't
-
I do not expect him to reflect' my views. And, as I have said, people make mistakes.
Yes, but he makes a lot. And they are very unpleasant:
"In January 2016, the Labour Party unsuccessfully proposed an amendment in Parliament that would have required private landlords to make their homes "fit for human habitation". According to Parliament's register of interests, Swayne was one of 72 Conservative MPs who voted against the amendment who personally derived an income from renting out property. The Conservative Government had responded to the amendment that they believed homes should be fit for human habitation but did not want to pass the new law that would explicitly require it.
In a 2021 interview with anti-vaccination filmmaker Del Bigtree, Swayne said that Britain had become "a police state" and accused the government of attempting to enact "social control". When questioned about this by Sky News, Swayne stated that he had never heard of Bigtree.
In January 2021, Swayne was criticised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews for his 2020 appearance on The Richie Allen Show, which has been accused of anti-Semitism.
On 28 September 2019, Swayne remarked that "blackface" was an "entirely acceptable bit of fun". On 30 September, it was reported that he wore blackface while attending a Blues Brothers themed party, where he was pictured posing as James Brown.
"
One or two I'd expect, but this level of nastiness. Nah. Wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't have thought you would have either.
But there we are, we live and learn.
-
Yes, but he makes a lot. And they are very unpleasant:
"In January 2016, the Labour Party unsuccessfully proposed an amendment in Parliament that would have required private landlords to make their homes "fit for human habitation". According to Parliament's register of interests, Swayne was one of 72 Conservative MPs who voted against the amendment who personally derived an income from renting out property. The Conservative Government had responded to the amendment that they believed homes should be fit for human habitation but did not want to pass the new law that would explicitly require it.
In a 2021 interview with anti-vaccination filmmaker Del Bigtree, Swayne said that Britain had become "a police state" and accused the government of attempting to enact "social control". When questioned about this by Sky News, Swayne stated that he had never heard of Bigtree.
In January 2021, Swayne was criticised by the Board of Deputies of British Jews for his 2020 appearance on The Richie Allen Show, which has been accused of anti-Semitism.
On 28 September 2019, Swayne remarked that "blackface" was an "entirely acceptable bit of fun". On 30 September, it was reported that he wore blackface while attending a Blues Brothers themed party, where he was pictured posing as James Brown.
"
One or two I'd expect, but this level of nastiness. Nah. Wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't have thought you would have either.
But there we are, we live and learn.
Okay - I have no intention of tracking back through all the things he has done over the years, but I am fairly sure there are a few things he has done right!
-
I do not expect him to reflect' my views. And, as I have said, people make mistakes.
But in voting for him and describing him as a good MP, you are then giving support to the concept of locking Trentvoyager up for being gay.
-
But in voting for him and describing him as a good MP, you are then giving support to the concept of locking Trentvoyager up for being gay.
Well, that's rubbish of course.
If you can find a recent speech or e-mail or something of his which demonstrates that he still holds that view, I wil challenge him on it.
-
Well, that's rubbish of course.
If you can find a recent speech or e-mail or something of his which demonstrates that he still holds that view, I wil challenge him on it.
Can you provide evidence that he has said he was wrong to hold that view and an apology from him?
-
Well, that's rubbish of course.
If you can find a recent speech or e-mail or something of his which demonstrates that he still holds that view, I wil challenge him on it.
That he ever held that view is bad enough, surely? Failing a Damascene conversion, I doubt that he's changed his view significantly.
-
Well, that's rubbish of course.
If you can find a recent speech or e-mail or something of his which demonstrates that he still holds that view, I wil challenge him on it.
It is possible for people to change. I don't doubt that.
No doubt the remarks he made about gay people were made back at the height of the Aids crisis in the 80's. So yes he could have changed. Although would you have said that then?
It's just that his pattern of behaviour really suggests otherwise. If he's indulging in, and defending black face as recently as 2019 then it points to a mindset that is, shall we say, less than enlightened.
-
In what way do you think he might be guilty of treason?
Well, looking at the definition of treason in the UK given in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_Kingdom
"when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir"; (following the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 this is read to mean the eldest child and heir)
"if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir";[36][37] (following the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 this is read to mean the eldest son if the heir)
"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"
"if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".
"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".
I'd say the best chance is the second clause given that Johnson has never levied actual war against the UK, even though he has done untold damage.
-
That he ever held that view is bad enough, surely?
No. People change their views and they should not be penalised for doing so. This is part of the problem with politics today. Changing your mind is seen as a weakness. Past mistakes cannot be redeemed, apparently.
-
Can you provide evidence that he has said he was wrong to hold that view and an apology from him?
No, it is beyond my technical ability to do that.
-
No, it is beyond my technical ability to do that.
I can help with that SusanDoris. He has offered a fairly full explanation on this issue which I accept:
https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/news/forest-mp-swayne-shocked-by-his-own-comments-that-public-was-disgusted-by-homosexuality-9193427/
I'm not sure that you'll be all that pleased because his change of heart came about because of his religious views!
Me - I'll take it, one less person hating anyone for any reason is a good thing.
I don't withdraw any of the other accusations against him. The self interest of voting against housing standards stinks.
-
I can help with that SusanDoris. He has offered a fairly full explanation on this issue which I accept:
https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/news/forest-mp-swayne-shocked-by-his-own-comments-that-public-was-disgusted-by-homosexuality-9193427/
I'm not sure that you'll be all that pleased because his change of heart came about because of his religious views!
Me - I'll take it, one less person hating anyone for any reason is a good thing.
I don't withdraw any of the other accusations against him. The self interest of voting against housing standards stinks.
Thank you. Yes, I think he is way behind the times still believing in God and having the faith he does. I am wel aware too that there are members of the NFWCA whose bigotry in terms of strict adherence to ancient antediluvial biblican religious beliefs is appalling but he's not going to change those beliefs amdhe is not afraid of owning to past mistakes. He's a flawed human being as most of us are.
-
Thank you. Yes, I think he is way behind the times still believing in God and having the faith he does. I am wel aware too that there are members of the NFWCA whose bigotry in terms of strict adherence to ancient antediluvial biblican religious beliefs is appalling but he's not going to change those beliefs amdhe is not afraid of owning to past mistakes. He's a flawed human being as most of us are.
Which rather begs the question Susan - what makes him so good as an MP that you appear to be prepared to vote for him despite the fact that doing so made it more likely that Boris would be PM. How do you square that circle - or perhaps it is that you preferred Boris as PM to the alternatives and therefore this notion that it is all about your local MP seems somewhat hollow.
-
Another Susie Dent word of the day:
Word of the day is ‘forwaked’ (14th century): weary from watching and waiting for something that never seems to materialise.
-
Tom Tugendhat saying he would stand
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/29/tory-mp-tom-tugendhat-becomes-first-to-throw-hat-into-leadership-ring-boris-johnson
-
Tom Tugendhat saying he would stand
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/29/tory-mp-tom-tugendhat-becomes-first-to-throw-hat-into-leadership-ring-boris-johnson
Jolly good. It's about time we had another Tory Prime Minister with a sily name, to join Archibald Primrose, Bonar Law and Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
-
Erotic fiction......
-
Yikes - that image is quite unsettling.
-
Yikes - that image is quite unsettling.
It is really quite disturbing.
-
So Michael Gove said that we need to show "Christian forgiveness" to this government.
They really are just taking the piss now.
-
So Michael Gove said that we need to show "Christian forgiveness" to this government.
They really are just taking the piss now.
Johnson is unrepentant.
Welby wanted the same for the Bankers responsible for the 2008 Financial Disaster. Said Bankers were I think similarly unrepentant.
-
So Michael Gove said that we need to show "Christian forgiveness" to this government.
I loath this notion of 'demanding' forgiveness from individuals who have been wronged. It is classic victim blaming and deflects from those who really should be under the spotlight - those who are the perpetrators of the wrongful act. It effectively implies that if a victim does not feel forgiveness towards the perpetrator that they are someone committing a wrongful act themselves.
-
So Michael Gove said that we need to show "Christian forgiveness" to this government.
They really are just taking the piss now.
Well, I'm not a Christian but I was once and I seem to remember that to earn forgiveness, repentance was involved.
Furthermore, forgiving this shower does not mean not firing them. These people have shown themselves not competent to be running the country.
-
Well, I'm not a Christian but I was once and I seem to remember that to earn forgiveness, repentance was involved.
Furthermore, forgiving this shower does not mean not firing them. These people have shown themselves not competent to be running the country.
Johnson is an inveterate hider of multitudes of sins with his ''moving on'' routine. A enquiry for instance should revisit his attempt to cover test and trace failure by shifting the focus onto vaccines. His life now is just a display of how to dodge thingsin an obscene freakshow. This is a million miles from repentance and competence. I'm with you 100%.
-
Theresa May
"so either my right honourable friend had not read the rules or didn’t understand what they meant and others around him, or they didn’t think the rules applied to Number 10. Which was it?”
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Goodness me.
-
Theresa May
"so either my right honourable friend had not read the rules or didn’t understand what they meant and others around him, or they didn’t think the rules applied to Number 10. Which was it?”
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Goodness me.
She's starting to grow on me.....
-
Theresa May
"so either my right honourable friend had not read the rules or didn’t understand what they meant and others around him, or they didn’t think the rules applied to Number 10. Which was it?”
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
Goodness me.
Notice that he didn't answer the question.
-
She's starting to grow on me.....
I have to say she's looking a lot better for not being the prime minister.
-
I have to say she's looking a lot better for not being the prime minister.
Even wee Ruth shed a tear last night on C4. Crocodiles, eh?
-
Following Nadine Dorries extraordinary appearance yesterday, this is now spreading across the Twitterverse:
-
Following Nadine Dorries extraordinary appearance yesterday, this is now spreading across the Twitterverse:
Calling that a car crash was an insult to road accidents.
She raised incompetance to the realms of art.
-
Seen elsewhere:
There once was a girl called Nadine
Who preferred her gin sans quinine
It’s delivered in Lorries
Labelled “Poison for Dorries”
Her pay to defend the obscene
-
The remark from Johnson to Starmer about Savile was cheap, desperate, and wrong. Had he made it outside the House, he would have been sued and lost. He's a deeply unpleasant liar.
-
Whoever this Nadine Dorries is,what she says will not alter what the outcome of the present kerfuffle will be - i.e. Boris still in post - until possibly the next General Election. As far as I'm concerned, I probably shan't be here by then!
Mind you, if I am, I shall indeed be reading and posting on this thread! :)
-
The remark from Johnson to Starmer about Savile was cheap, desperate, and wrong. Had he made it outside the House, he would have been sued and lost. He's a deeply unpleasant liar.
The PM is desperate. He's lashing out wherever he can.
-
The PM is desperate. He's lashing out wherever he can.
I think Nadine was on the Lash yesterday as well.
-
The remark from Johnson to Starmer about Savile was cheap, desperate, and wrong. Had he made it outside the House, he would have been sued and lost. He's a deeply unpleasant liar.
If the Speaker had any guts Johnson would have been banned from the Chamber for five days.
-
The remark from Johnson to Starmer about Savile was cheap, desperate, and wrong. Had he made it outside the House, he would have been sued and lost. He's a deeply unpleasant liar.
What remark was that?
(Edit) I googled. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60213975)
-
Good from the Mash
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/i-loved-the-xenophobia-and-fking-the-economy-but-i-draw-the-line-at-parties-a-tory-mp-explains-his-resignation-letter-20220203216985
-
Tax cut for bankers
https://www.thewestonmercury.co.uk/news/finance-bill-tax-cut-for-bankers-somerset-8665414
But increase in National.Insurance to go ahead
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/minister-says-gov-not-delay-081818309.html
-
Maenwhile good for Jack Monroe on picking up on the disproportionate affect rising food and energy prices have on the poor.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jan/26/terry-pratchett-jack-monroe-vimes-boots-poverty-index
-
Lookiing up Namira Mirz, I see from wikipedia that she is married to one Dougie Smith whose work is something to do with running parties, so I can't help wondering whether she has resigned incase Sue Grey's report mentions him!!
-
Lookiing up Namira Mirz, I see from wikipedia that she is married to one Dougie Smith whose work is something to do with running parties, so I can't help wondering whether she has resigned incase Sue Grey's report mentions him!!
As opposed to Johnson breaking the rules and lying about it. Nice to see you ignoring Johnson's smearing lie about Starmer.
-
As opposed to Johnson breaking the rules and lying about it. Nice to see you ignoring Johnson's smearing lie about Starmer.
No-one is obliged to mention anything.
-
As opposed to Johnson breaking the rules and lying about it. Nice to see you ignoring Johnson's smearing lie about Starmer.
At the moment actually, I am ignoring Boris as much as I can.
-
At the moment actually, I am ignoring Boris as much as I can.
And why are you doing that Susan?
-
At the moment actually, I am ignoring Boris as much as I can.
Wise words, pity that all those he has lied about, all those are going to lose their houses because of his incompetence will not be able to ignore him
-
Selfish it may be, but since there is nothing I can do to change things by thinking about Boris, or politics in general, I'd rather spend my time reading and thinking about things that interest me more. When elections come up, then I'll give it more thought.
-
One for the movie fans - prompted in part by NS:
“I’ve seen things you people wouldn't believe... my country’s credibility on fire off the shoulder of Raab... I watched Dorries glitter in the dark near the Downing Street Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like Truss on a map... Time to lie”
(Not mine own - sadly)
-
And Jonathan Pie doing what he does best:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/opinion/boris-johnson-party-scandal.html?
-
And Jonathan Pie doing what he does best:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/opinion/boris-johnson-party-scandal.html?
Brilliant, as always!
-
And this is as a result of the atrocious behaviour of the PM.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-keir-starmer-rescued-police-26163353?_ga=2.156281979.1165248988.1644257756-1215954419.1642697081
-
And this is as a result of the atrocious behaviour of the PM.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/breaking-keir-starmer-rescued-police-26163353?_ga=2.156281979.1165248988.1644257756-1215954419.1642697081
It will only get worse.
-
It will only get worse.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the liar to bleat an apology.
-
James Blunt
-
;D
-
John Major on Johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/10/john-major-says-boris-johnson-broke-lockdown-laws-and-is-creating-mistrust?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
John Major on Johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/10/john-major-says-boris-johnson-broke-lockdown-laws-and-is-creating-mistrust?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I watched the whole speech on BBC News it was very good.
-
Well he's not going yet, but somebody else is:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-60340525
-
Ree-Smug, the poundland posho, has just become the minister for Brexshit "opportunities".
-
Couldn't disagree with what this chap says.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/12/lies-lies-and-more-lies-a-government-built-on-lies-is-incapable-of-anything-else
-
Couldn't disagree with what this chap says.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/12/lies-lies-and-more-lies-a-government-built-on-lies-is-incapable-of-anything-else
I'm just getting the inkling of a thought about an idea that the government perhaps, doesn't tell the whole truth.
I find this very hard to believe.
-
Depressingly, this chimes all too closely to my own feelings:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/13/sods-law-says-boris-johnson-will-be-gone-by-now?
-
Why not he pays the fine and gets on with his job?
-
Why not he pays the fine and gets on with his job?
Because he lied and lied and lied. While far too many of us died and died and died.
There are other relevant reasons such as the undermining of democracy, but as your post shows an alarmingly simplistic approach I won't confuse you further.
-
Why not he pays the fine and gets on with his job?
After lying to Parliament?
-
Why not he pays the fine and gets on with his job?
Because he is a self-serving lying fuckwit and it seems that a good chunk of his party are perverse enough to be prepared to ignore this.
His only concern currently is to appease the lunatic fringe in his own party so as to aid his survival, and to do that he will take risks such as deciding to abandon Covid restrictions in England, and seemingly without much in the way of consultation or supporting scientific advice, for what looks like political rather than public health reasons.
-
Why not he pays the fine and gets on with his job?
Exactly! And that's what wil happen in spite of the gnashings of teetth and anguish of the anti-Borisers!!
-
Exactly! And that's what wil happen in spite of the gnashings of teetth and anguish of the anti-Borisers!!
So you think it's ok to lie and lie and lie?
You are ok with the country's reputation being trashed abroad? (Truss was shown up for the ignoramus she is in Russia) You are ok with the lies about Brexit? You are ok with Billions lost to fraud and none of it being traced? You are ok with lying to the Queen? You are ok with energy prices going through the roof and no protection for the weakest in society. France can do it for fuck's sake, so why can't we?
Instead, you'll just wring your hands and say we are anti-Borisers. (incidentally as you didn't vote for Boris at his ascension to PM I think that means you are an anti-Boriser as well) and look how he treated anti-Borisers in parliament.
You'll say what can I do, even though you know all those things to be true?
Well, write to your MP. Ask for the resignation of Johnson on those grounds. IF enough do it, it will happen.
-
Exactly! And that's what wil happen in spite of the gnashings of teetth and anguish of the anti-Borisers!!
Nice to see you support a PM lying to parliament and breaking the law.
-
Nice to see you support a PM lying to parliament and breaking the law.
She didn't say she supported him; she merely predicted what she thinks will happen - how accurately remains to be seen.
-
She didn't say she supported him; she merely predicted what she thinks will happen - how accurately remains to be seen.
She refers to people thinking more should happen for lying to parliament as 'anti-Borisers'. Thst's not just a prediction, is it?
-
She didn't say she supported him; she merely predicted what she thinks will happen - how accurately remains to be seen.
She did more than make a prediction.
-
Why not he pays the fine and gets on with his job?
I don't think he should just pay a fine and be able to forget about it.
-
So you think it's ok to lie and lie and lie?
You are ok with the country's reputation being trashed abroad? (Truss was shown up for the ignoramus she is in Russia) You are ok with the lies about Brexit? You are ok with Billions lost to fraud and none of it being traced? You are ok with lying to the Queen? You are ok with energy prices going through the roof and no protection for the weakest in society. France can do it for fuck's sake, so why can't we?
Instead, you'll just wring your hands and say we are anti-Borisers. (incidentally as you didn't vote for Boris at his ascension to PM I think that means you are an anti-Boriser as well) and look how he treated anti-Borisers in parliament.
You'll say what can I do, even though you know all those things to be true?
Well, write to your MP. Ask for the resignation of Johnson on those grounds. IF enough do it, it will happen.
If you can bring forward one name for a candidate for the job who you think will (a) put him/herself forward, (b) get chosen, along with Boris, for the list of such MPs who will then be selected by MPs to put forward to members of the Party, and then (c) find a way of ensuring that the Party members vote will go the way of that person ... ... well, then I'll consider writing to my MP!
-
She didn't say she supported him; she merely predicted what she thinks will happen - how accurately remains to be seen.
Thank you! Correct!
-
I don't think he should just pay a fine and be able to forget about it.
All sorts of people think all sorts of things, but I look at things from a practical, realistic point of view. Please take note of my challenge to TV!
-
All sorts of people think all sorts of things, but I look at things from a practical, realistic point of view. Please take note of my challenge to TV!
Not a challenge. A cop out. Are you really telling me there are not more competent politicians in the Tory party than Johnson.
PS I'm not a member of the Conservative party. You are. I have no power in this matter. You do. Use it. Instead of defending the indefensible.
-
All sorts of people think all sorts of things, but I look at things from a practical, realistic point of view. Please take note of my challenge to TV!
I've taken note but disagree. The options are poor but that shouldn't, in my view, mean Johnson can get away with just a fine and carry on regardless.
-
She refers to people thinking more should happen for lying to parliament as 'anti-Borisers'. Thst's not just a prediction, is it?
She doesn't say that being anti-Boris is wrong.
-
I note that the chookie is invading Scotland today, sans freezer. The 'ordinary public' will, as usual, be conspicuous by their absence...as will the leader of the Scottish Tories.
-
If you can bring forward one name for a candidate for the job who you think will (a) put him/herself forward, (b) get chosen, along with Boris, for the list of such MPs who will then be selected by MPs to put forward to members of the Party, and then (c) find a way of ensuring that the Party members vote will go the way of that person ... ... well, then I'll consider writing to my MP!
It would be nice to think that there is a current Tory MP who would be at least half-way suitable: someone who is reasonably competent, prepared to actually do the homework required, isn't narcissistic, has a sense of responsibility to others and, crucially, understands the difference between truth and lies.
Surely there must be at least one Tory MP who meets these requirements.
-
She doesn't say that being anti-Boris is wrong.
It's clearly written to imply that. And it isn't just a prediction as you said.
-
It seems to me bizarre that someone who votes Tory wants non Tory voters to suggest who should be leader of the Tories, and PM, because the Tory voter can't think of any MP who is better than a PM who lies to parliamenr repeatedly, and has broken the law. Seems a much more damning indictment of the Tories than I could make.
-
It seems to me bizarre that someone who votes Tory wants non Tory voters to suggest who should be leader of the Tories, and PM, because the Tory voter can't think of any MP who is better than a PM who lies to parliamenr repeatedly, and has broken the law. Seems a much more damning indictment of the Tories than I could make.
Non Tory here.
I think pretty much anybody except Rees Mogg would bet an improvement. Granted, some would not be much of an improvement.
-
If you can bring forward one name for a candidate for the job who you think will (a) put him/herself forward, (b) get chosen, along with Boris, for the list of such MPs who will then be selected by MPs to put forward to members of the Party, and then (c) find a way of ensuring that the Party members vote will go the way of that person ... ... well, then I'll consider writing to my MP!
Firstly - I don't think that's how the process works. If Boris loses a VONC or resigns then I don't think he is able to be considered by MPs to go forward in a new contest. So it wouldn't be Boris vs others, it would be others vs others.
But surely it isn't for non tories to determine who the leader of the Conservative party should be - that decision lies with tories, specifically members of the party. I might or might not consider Tory X to be preferable to Tory Y, but it isn't my decision. And as a non-tory I'd probably be pretty poor at identifying the kind of traits that appeal to tory members and tory voters. So for example I simply cannot fathom the notion that Liz Truss seems to be the preferred new leader if Boris goes. That seems crazy as to me she seems totally light-weight and at times embarrassing - but then she must push the right buttons for tory members as they rate her highly.
-
Firstly - I don't think that's how the process works. If Boris loses a VONC or resigns then I don't think he is able to be considered by MPs to go forward in a new contest. So it wouldn't be Boris vs others, it would be others vs others.
Maybe, but do you really think that Boris will resign? I don't.But surely it isn't for non tories to determine who the leader of the Conservative party should be - that decision lies with tories, specifically [members of the party.
Yes - I thought that was clear in my post.I might or might not consider Tory X to be preferable to Tory Y, but it isn't my decision. And as a non-tory I'd probably be pretty poor at identifying the kind of traits that appeal to tory members and tory voters. So for example I simply cannot fathom the notion that Liz Truss seems to be the preferred new leader if Boris goes. That seems crazy as to me she seems totally light-weight and at times embarrassing - but then she must push the right buttons for tory members as they rate her highly.
I agree about Liz Truss and I don't think she'd stand a chance against Boris!
-
Firstly - I don't think that's how the process works. If Boris loses a VONC or resigns then I don't think he is able to be considered by MPs to go forward in a new contest.
Why not? In most cases, it would be a bit silly: if the leader wanted to stay on why would they resign? If the leader has lost a vote of no confidence where more than 50% of MPs had voted against them, it would be foolish to expect to do well in the subsequent leadership ballot. However, I say "most cases" because, in my life time one Conservative leader and PM resigned and then immediately got re-elected.
-
Why not?
Because that is what the rules say.
In most cases, it would be a bit silly: if the leader wanted to stay on why would they resign?
I'm actually not clear what would happen if the PM actually resigned - effectively whether he'd be able to stand in a subsequent election.
If the leader has lost a vote of no confidence where more than 50% of MPs had voted against them, it would be foolish to expect to do well in the subsequent leadership ballot. However, I say "most cases" because, in my life time one Conservative leader and PM resigned and then immediately got re-elected.
If you are thinking about Major, then the rules have changed. If you lose a VONC you are barred from standing in the subsequent leadership contest.
-
Because that is what the rules say.
Do they?
-
Do they?
Certainly on VONC - if you lose you cannot stand in the subsequent leadership election. Not quite so sure regarding resignation, but I think this was discussed on another MB a couple of weeks ago and I think the situation is that by resigning you are also automatically barred from the leadership election.
-
Certainly on VONC - if you lose you cannot stand in the subsequent leadership election. Not quite so sure regarding resignation, but I think this was discussed on another MB a couple of weeks ago and I think the situation is that by resigning you are also automatically barred from the leadership election.
I'm just reading the constitution now. The resigning leader is explicitly banned from being on the subsequent ballot.
-
Certainly on VONC - if you lose you cannot stand in the subsequent leadership election. Not quite so sure regarding resignation, but I think this was discussed on another MB a couple of weeks ago and I think the situation is that by resigning you are also automatically barred from the leadership election.
Checked it out - if he resigns he cannot stand in the subsequent election - this from the Conservative Party Constitution:
'A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election'
There has been discussion that he could try to remain PM even if he is ousted as leader of the Conservative party through a VONC, noting that the two positions (PM and leader of the Conservative party) are different things.
-
I'm just reading the constitution now. The resigning leader is explicitly banned from being on the subsequent ballot.
Yup - you beat me to it.
-
Yup - you beat me to it.
It's all a big 'if', isn't it?! Do you really think he is going to resign? MPs have not put forward a vote of no confidence, have they.
-
It's all a big 'if', isn't it?! Do you really think he is going to resign? MPs have not put forward a vote of no confidence, have they.
No I don't think he's going to resign. I think he should though, because he has no credibility left with the majority of the people he purports to lead (I mean as prime minister, not leader of the Conservative Party).
-
It's all a big 'if', isn't it?!
Indeed it is - anyone with a shred of integrity would have already resigned.
Do you really think he is going to resign?
He's clearly not going to go easily. The police questionnaire may well be a lose/lose bear trap. Answer yes and he'll be fined (effectively a conviction) and it is difficult to see how he survives this. Moreover if he accepts a fine he will have, effective, admitted that he lied to parliament, which is a resigning issue. Try to claim he wasn't there, it wasn't a party etc etc and he runs the risk of going down the Chris Huhne route - it wasn't the speeding fine that got him, it was perverting the course of justice that did for him by claiming his wife was driving. So if Boris lies on the questionnaire the sanction might not be just a fine, but jail time as perverting the course of justice is a much more serious offence than speeding or partying during lock-down.
MPs have not put forward a vote of no confidence, have they.
Yet - I suspect they are planning the optimal moment. Currently it is still easy to 'wait and see' - the time to strike, I imagine will be when (if) he is found guilty of breaking the lockdown law. And remember that those plotting against him don't just need to trigger a VONC - they need to win it. They will want the actual vote to take place when their colleagues cannot be in 'wait and see mode'.
-
Indeed it is - anyone with a shred of integrity would have already resigned.
He's clearly not going to go easily. The police questionnaire may well be a lose/lose bear trap. Answer yes and he'll be fined (effectively a conviction) and it is difficult to see how he survives this. Moreover if he accepts a fine he will have, effective, admitted that he lied to parliament, which is a resigning issue. Try to claim he wasn't there, it wasn't a party etc etc and he runs the risk of going down the Chris Huhne route - it wasn't the speeding fine that got him, it was perverting the course of justice that did for him by claiming his wife was driving. So if Boris lies on the questionnaire the sanction might not be just a fine, but jail time as perverting the course of justice is a much more serious offence than speeding or partying during lock-down.
Yet - I suspect they are planning the optimal moment. Currently it is still easy to 'wait and see' - the time to strike, I imagine will be when (if) he is found guilty of breaking the lockdown law. And remember that those plotting against him don't just need to trigger a VONC - they need to win it. They will want the actual vote to take place when their colleagues cannot be in 'wait and see mode'.
More ifs and what-ifs. Or just maybe more people will consider that if an MP steps forward to take the PM's place, the press will be taking a close look at his/her past too; or that those who would be voting think there are no perfect people, and if anyone thinks they are without fault, then they are seriously deluded! That might make them think that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.
Perhaps the news of police corruption and por attitudes from too many might not want to take whatever they say about Boris as seriously as they might have done.
Whatever the ifs and reasons, I think Boris will stil be in post for a while yet.
-
More ifs and what-ifs.
So what - we are speculating about what may happen next.
Or just maybe more people will consider that if an MP steps forward to take the PM's place, the press will be taking a close look at his/her past too; or that those who would be voting think there are no perfect people, and if anyone thinks they are without fault, then they are seriously deluded! That might make them think that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.
I thought you considered ifs and what-ifs to be dismissed - yet this whole section is nothing more than a series of ifs and what-ifs.
But on your speculation - well firstly the 'people' we need to consider here are Tory MPs. Secondly, while I agree that any potential new PM will receive extreme scrutiny I don't agree that every potential will be like Boris. People have know for years that Boris is unscrupulous, dishonest and dodgy in the extreme all the way back to his dealings with Darius Guppy in 1990. So not all politicians are like Johnson so it isn't a case of better than the one you don't. Indeed I'm not sure that any politician with credible aspiration to be PM comes anything close to being like Johnson in terms of dishonesty etc, with perhaps the exception of Grant Shapps.
Perhaps the news of police corruption and por attitudes from too many might not want to take whatever they say about Boris as seriously as they might have done.
Sorry Susan - you've got it the wrong way around. One of the (many) criticisms of the Met has been their failure to investigate the parties at no10. Their ridiculous claims that there wasn't sufficient evidence to investigate when there were photographs. Their claims that they don't investigate retrospective crimes :o So the issue isn't that people consider that the Met Police will hang him out to dry - no it is that they have done everything they can to prevent holding him to account. So if they let him off, particularly if they fine others, there will be a general howl of whitewash.
-
That might make them think that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.
If the 'devil you know' is a proven liar with narcissistic tendencies and who exhibits naked self-interest then, and once excluding the obvious equally suspect alternatives (Rees Mogg, Raab, Patel etc), there must presumably a Tory MP who would be an improvement of sorts.
Hard to imagine that there is worse than Johnson in the Tory party.
-
That might make them think that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.
Seriously? Then we'd never improve on anything if we took that attitude. Better the gaslight you know that that dodgy electric bulb.
Never mind that gas was more prone to starting fires, was dirtier, and not as illuminating, let's stick with what we know.
Well, you claim to be all about being realistic. Then be realistic, see Johnson for the disaster he is for this country and do something about it.
-
And yet, and yet ... ... he's still there! And was voted there not so long ago in spite of his history as related in one of above posts!
-
And yet, and yet ... ... he's still there!
You are correct ... for now.
And was voted there not so long ago in spite of his history as related in one of above posts!
Irrelevant - May, Cameron, Blair and Thatcher all went mid term having won an election just a couple of years previously. And he won in 2019 in large part because he was up against Corbyn, whose history was equally unpleasant (albeit in different ways).
-
And yet, and yet ... ... he's still there! And was voted there not so long ago in spite of his history as related in one of above posts!
But do you think he's good for the country or do you think we would benefit from a change of PM?
-
But do you think he's good for the country or do you think we would benefit from a change of PM?
And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!
-
And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!
I'll just take one that doesn't lie to parliament and break the law. You on the other hand vote for a party where you think those standards are too high.
-
And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!
And I come back to my gas/electricity lighting. How can you compare any PM to a current, also acting PM. That statement makes no sense.
AS I said to a friend on FB recently when he also said something of a similar nature - "all politicians lie" was his take.
I replied comparing Johnson to other politicians in regard to lying is like comparing somebody who has the odd drag on a ciggy every now and then with a crack whore. There really is not a comparison (well there is, there's Trump but that's a digression to far) he is appalling and should go.
Rampant fraud, lying to the Queen, breaking the law, trying to get a journalist beaten up, making the poor, poorer, and the rich, richer are all things that you think are good for the country. The list is so much longer but I haven't got the time.
That you should even think a qualified yes is possible, speaks poorly of the regard you hold for the law, poorer sections of society, honesty and violence. And the Queen.
-
So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country.
So come on then - give us some examples of how you think he is good for the country right now - not harking back to sometime in the past. Right now - how is the country benefiting from his and his government's leadership.
-
And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!
You don't know whether there is any talent above Johnson or not but hazarding a guess there are probably a few. They of course would start their prime ministership having had the masterclass in how not to be prime minister.
To your critics Susan I would say this, ''what do you expect from an increasingly secular SusanDoris?''
-
You don't know whether there is any talent above Johnson or not but hazarding a guess there are probably a few. They of course would start their prime ministership having had the masterclass in how not to be prime minister.
To your critics Susan I would say this, ''what do you expect from an increasingly secular SusanDoris?''
WTF does 'secular' have to do with this?
-
To your critics Susan I would say this, ''what do you expect from an increasingly secular SusanDoris?''
You really like to shoehorn a digestive biscuit into a platypus don't you?
WTF has it got to do with her being secular. By your reasoning, I should support Johnson. So away with your secular paranoia. I mean your paranoia about secularism.
-
And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!
He's an incompetent lying fuckwit and, moreover, he's a Tory: and given the current state of the Tory party he's not even clearing a bar that is so low you could trip over it.
-
He's an incompetent lying fuckwit and, moreover, he's a Tory: and given the current state of the Tory party he's not even clearing a bar that is so low you could trip over it.
#
Look on the bright side....as 'minister for the union', he's living up to our expectations......er.....
-
mmmmmmm, well now, let me see ....
Just because I say one thing does not automatically mean I think the opposite!
'good for the country' does not need specific examples from me - and it's more a case of being the least worst, bearing in mind that to try to install another probably won't work.
Today I shall not be thinking about politics.
-
Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!
Of course nobody expects saints, but I think we have a right to expect a PM to be truthful and not corrupt, and not to treat the electorate with contempt or be completely self-serving. When any one, in relation to a political leader, say's "s/he's not a saint", or "nobody expects saints", it's a sure sign that they're trying to defend the indefensible. I think it's the straw man falacy - NS would know.
-
Hmm...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1496534446287331329.html
-
Hmm...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1496534446287331329.html
Wel, yes, it's a topsy-turvy world, but we're stuck with it at the moment. Supposing Labour were in power, do you think they would have managed the whole thing much better? If you think the answer is yes, can you say - briefly! - why?
-
Wel, yes, it's a topsy-turvy world, but we're stuck with it at the moment. Supposing Labour were in power, do you think they would have managed the whole thing much better? If you think the answer is yes, can you say - briefly! - why?
I think they would have been about as incompetent but in different ways. We would probably have locked down two weeks earlier than we did. There would have been less corruption involved in obtaining PPE supplies and other necessary infrastructure etc but also more shortages and chaos. I think the initial roll out of vaccines would have been slower but we would still be about where we are now with them. We would not now be pretending the pandemic is all over in order to save the PM's job.
Added to that, we would still be in the EU customs union so the economic disaster that is the inevitable consequence of the lock down and the cost of the furlough payments would be slightly mitigated.
-
I think the initial roll out of vaccines would have been slower but we would still be about where we are now with them.
Not sure why you think that initial vaccine roll out would have been slower - I see no reason why a different government would have taken a differing view on vaccine procurement, and the roll out itself was largely coordinated by and driven through the NHS. The UK having such a national service was very helpful in ensuring that vaccines could be rolled out at speed. Don't see why that would have been different with an alternative government. And seeing as health is devolved, we've actually done the experiment - the devolved nations, operating under different governments and parties all rolled out the vaccines at pretty well identical pace.
-
Not sure why you think that initial vaccine roll out would have been slower - I see no reason why a different government would have taken a differing view on vaccine procurement, and the roll out itself was largely coordinated by and driven through the NHS. The UK having such a national service was very helpful in ensuring that vaccines could be rolled out at speed. Don't see why that would have been different with an alternative government. And seeing as health is devolved, we've actually done the experiment - the devolved nations, operating under different governments and parties all rolled out the vaccines at pretty well identical pace.
But the critical thing in making sure the roll out was quick was actually having the vaccines. Th government moved very fast to sign contracts with the suppliers. I think a Labour government would have taken longer and therefore been further back in the queue. Don't forget that this would be a Labour government run by Jeremy Corbyn, the single most useless politician to grace the Labour front bench, ever. In fact, now I think about it, the entire response would probably have been completely chaotic.
-
I think they would have been about as incompetent but in different ways. We would probably have locked down two weeks earlier than we did. There would have been less corruption involved in obtaining PPE supplies and other necessary infrastructure etc but also more shortages and chaos. I think the initial roll out of vaccines would have been slower but we would still be about where we are now with them. We would not now be pretending the pandemic is all over in order to save the PM's job.
Added to that, we would still be in the EU customs union so the economic disaster that is the inevitable consequence of the lock down and the cost of the furlough payments would be slightly mitigated.
Thank you for your reply. It's the rock or a hard place, isn't it.
-
Newsthump in unexpectedly sombre and sensible mode:
If Boris says he "didn't realise at the time" that he was breaking the rules, then fair enough. We've all worked with simpletons who failed to understand clear and simple instructions.
The question is, do we want one of them as the Prime Minister?
The alternative, of course, is that he DID understand the rules, but decided to ignore them. Again, we've all worked with arrogant narcissists who believed the rules were for the 'other people'.
The question is, do we want one of them as the Prime Minister?
-
My take on partygate is it wasn't at all out of order for Boris or any of the others to have a social gathering, as long as it was reasonably socially distanced. The problem is the rules themselves, which were way over the top and in the worst case led to a child being beaten to death at home.
-
My take on partygate is it wasn't at all out of order for Boris or any of the others to have a social gathering, as long as it was reasonably socially distanced. The problem is the rules themselves, which were way over the top and in the worst case led to a child being beaten to death at home.
The main issue here is Johnson's continual lying to the country and parliament.
-
My take on partygate is it wasn't at all out of order for Boris or any of the others to have a social gathering, as long as it was reasonably socially distanced. The problem is the rules themselves, which were way over the top and in the worst case led to a child being beaten to death at home.
Yert the lying hypocrite MADE, endorsed and propogated the rules.
That the buffoon treated them with scorn says all you need to know about him.
-
Yert the lying hypocrite MADE, endorsed and propogated the rules.
That the buffoon treated them with scorn says all you need to know about him.
Well he was under pressure to make them, and I think any rule has to be followed as far as one's conscience allows - so for example he tried to get out of self isolating the whole 2 weeks - understandable if he's prime minister. It's also understand le that he would make light of breaking them if there is a clamour for his head from his opponents.
-
Well he was under pressure to make them, and I think any rule has to be followed as far as one's conscience allows - so for example he tried to get out of self isolating the whole 2 weeks - understandable if he's prime minister. It's also understand le that he would make light of breaking them if there is a clamour for his head from his opponents.
He lied about it in the HoC.
-
Well he was under pressure to make them, and I think any rule has to be followed as far as one's conscience allows - so for example he tried to get out of self isolating the whole 2 weeks - understandable if he's prime minister. It's also understand le that he would make light of breaking them if there is a clamour for his head from his opponents.
What are you not getting?
He set the rules (which were laws so let's not make them less than they were), he should lead by example if he wants people to follow the rules.
Conscience was not allowed as a credible defence for all those who were fined during lockdown.
Many people were not allowed to hold the hands of their loved ones as those loved ones died, yet No.10's inhabitants think it is ok to get drunk together. It really is just taking the piss out of us. As ever with Conservatives one rule for them and another for the little people. Another case in point Non Dom status. If you can afford to fork out 40 or 50 grand a year you can miraculously avoid taxes. A loophole not available to the likes of you and me.
FFS they are taking people for mugs and some people just sit there and say "yes please let me lick some more of your shit up for you".
-
What are you not getting?
He set the rules (which were laws so let's not make them less than they were), he should lead by example if he wants people to follow the rules.
Conscience was not allowed as a credible defence for all those who were fined during lockdown.
Many people were not allowed to hold the hands of their loved ones as those loved ones died, yet No.10's inhabitants think it is ok to get drunk together. It really is just taking the piss out of us. As ever with Conservatives one rule for them and another for the little people. Another case in point Non Dom status. If you can afford to fork out 40 or 50 grand a year you can miraculously avoid taxes. A loophole not available to the likes of you and me.
FFS they are taking people for mugs and some people just sit there and say "yes please let me lick some more of your shit up for you".
Labour wanted far stricter rules. Not seeing loved ones was a result of a clamour from all angles to Get Rid of the Virus. Ok he broke the rules and lied. Frankly cohabiting in no 10 was enough to put me off. Let him pay the fine and vote him out at the next election. No further action necessary.
-
Labour wanted far stricter rules. Not seeing loved ones was a result of a clamour from all angles to Get Rid of the Virus. Ok he broke the rules and lied. Frankly cohabiting in no 10 was enough to put me off. Let him pay the fine and vote him out at the next election. No further action necessary.
Disagree.
-
Labour wanted far stricter rules. Not seeing loved ones was a result of a clamour from all angles to Get Rid of the Virus. Ok he broke the rules and lied. Frankly cohabiting in no 10 was enough to put me off. Let him pay the fine and vote him out at the next election. No further action necessary.
I want him held responsible for continually lying in the HoC, why do you wabt him let off for that?
-
.
-
I want him held responsible for continually lying in the HoC, why do you wabt him let off for that?
Because the Tory party aren't going to take action, so it will be up to voters.
-
Because the Tory party aren't going to take action, so it will be up to voters.
I want the Speaker of the House to take action.
-
Labour wanted far stricter rules
Even if that is true, how is it relevant?
Not seeing loved ones was a result of a clamour from all angles to Get Rid of the Virus.
No, it was a result of trying to stop the spread of the virus, as was not holding gatherings of people for social activities. You know stop the virus from spreading so that you get fewer loved ones in hospital not more.
Ok he broke the rules and lied.
To parliament, which has previously been a resigning issue as a matter of principle.
Frankly cohabiting in no 10 was enough to put me off.
Irrelevant. If you are going to start looking for what you consider to be "moral" behaviour all the time from any human being then you really have learnt nothing in your time on the planet.
Let him pay the fine and vote him out at the next election.
Why? You are happy to let a proven liar go on leading the country. Voting him out at the next election is not a done deal. He is doing his best to fix the system to give him the best possible chance of getting re-elected. So no, not good enough. The rot and stench of corruption need to stop now before the system is completely wrecked.
-
Okay, I've read all the abovbe vitriolic posts. It's Conservative MPs who will choose which candidates are put forward to members to choose for their next PM. If they do not choose to do that, then he stays where he is. If you really all think that everything he has done is wrong, and you're going to vote Labour, SNP or LibDem next time anyway, tell them to put forward a leader who would have handled everything, and I mean everything, and not made mistakes or told even a small lie. You can view everything the PM has done through the fiercely one-sided viewers you are wearing but if you cannot find anything at all he has ever done which you can approve of, then maybe your idealism and demands for perfection are perhaps completely unrealistic. And that would be a pity and I think and hope you are all more reasonable than that. Maybe you could take a step bak and take a wider look ... ...
-
Okay, I've read all the abovbe vitriolic posts. It's Conservative MPs who will choose which candidates are put forward to members to choose for their next PM. If they do not choose to do that, then he stays where he is. If you really all think that everything he has done is wrong, and you're going to vote Labour, SNP or LibDem next time anyway, tell them to put forward a leader who would have handled everything, and I mean everything, and not made mistakes or told even a small lie. You can view everything the PM has done through the fiercely one-sided viewers you are wearing but if you cannot find anything at all he has ever done which you can approve of, then maybe your idealism and demands for perfection are perhaps completely unrealistic. And that would be a pity and I think and hope you are all more reasonable than that. Maybe you could take a step bak and take a wider look ... ...
I don't think having a leader that has not repeatedly lied to the HoC is a demand for perfection, is it?
-
Okay, I've read all the abovbe vitriolic posts. It's Conservative MPs who will choose which candidates are put forward to members to choose for their next PM. If they do not choose to do that, then he stays where he is. If you really all think that everything he has done is wrong, and you're going to vote Labour, SNP or LibDem next time anyway, tell them to put forward a leader who would have handled everything, and I mean everything, and not made mistakes or told even a small lie. You can view everything the PM has done through the fiercely one-sided viewers you are wearing but if you cannot find anything at all he has ever done which you can approve of, then maybe your idealism and demands for perfection are perhaps completely unrealistic. And that would be a pity and I think and hope you are all more reasonable than that. Maybe you could take a step bak and take a wider look ... ...
Perfection is impossible, mistakes are always made by any politician we all understand that. It is the sheer scale of incompetence and then the industrial quantities of lies manufactured to cover up said incompetence that is staggering and which I might add renders your support for him all the more puzzling. Rationality does not only apply to religion.
Is it too much to hope for some honesty, some compassion for your fellow human beings, and some hard work?
Johnson does none of this. He is not worthy to be a PM.
-
Perfection is impossible, mistakes are always made by any politician we all understand that. It is the sheer scale of incompetence and then the industrial quantities of lies manufactured to cover up said incompetence that is staggering and which I might add renders your support for him all the more puzzling. Rationality does not only apply to religion.
Is it too much to hope for some honesty, some compassion for your fellow human beings, and some hard work?
Johnson does none of this. He is not worthy to be a PM.
I do not 'support' him, I simply point out that there is no-one available, or being put forward, as a strong and more effective alternative PM at the moment. Even if there was such a person available, he or she cannot just walk into No. 10 and take over.
Do you really think that everything he says or does is wrong? A lie? Is not compassionate in any way? Or do you think everything he does is wrong because of the things he actually has has done wrong?
-
I do not 'support' him, I simply point out that there is no-one available, or being put forward, as a strong and more effective alternative PM at the moment. Even if there was such a person available, he or she cannot just walk into No. 10 and take over.
Do you really think that everything he says or does is wrong? A lie? Is not compassionate in any way? Or do you think everything he does is wrong because of the things he actually has has done wrong?
He is a serial liar: presumably somewhere among Tory MPs there is at least one of them who knows the difference between truth and lies.
He needs to be disposed of immediately, and since it seems that enough Tory MPs can't as yet see this, or if they can then they aren't prepared to act, does not reflect well on them or their party.
-
P.S. to my previous post: I do realise of course that having a strong rant here against Boris is satisfying for those so much against the Conservative Party.
This thread has been an interesting read for someone like me who really cannot get passionate about politics!
-
I do not 'support' him, I simply point out that there is no-one available, or being put forward, as a strong and more effective alternative PM at the moment.
I put forward the turd some neighbour's dog left in my garden overnight, so you no longer have that excuse. Starmer, Davey, Denyer/Ramsay, Sturgeon... all of them more trustworthy than Johnson.
Even if there was such a person available, he or she cannot just walk into No. 10 and take over.
Even if? The only current party leader who is arguably less suited is Neil Hamilton, and then it's a coin flip.
Do you really think that everything he says or does is wrong? A lie?
Everything, probably not. Can we trust any of enough to risk it - no. He has a demonstrable track record of lying in each and every forum he's had access to, from his journalism through his support for Brexit, and then onto his career as Foreign Secretary and now Prime Minister.
Is not compassionate in any way?
Not that I've seen any evidence of, no. He appears to have a disinterest in anyone else and a self-importance that leans towards an amateur diagnosis that he's a sociopath.
Or do you think everything he does is wrong because of the things he actually has has done wrong?
Are the many, many, many, many demonstrable things he has done wrong not enough? Even if you disagree with the balance of interests he represents politically, he's a fundamentally dishonest, callous, obnoxiously self-important twat. There are competent, professional, thoughtful Conservative politicians that I disagree with on policy but can accept on the basis of the parliamentary system we have in this country, but that a party would put that cockwomble up as their leader is just inconceivable to me.
O.
-
I put forward the turd some neighbour's dog left in my garden overnight, so you no longer have that excuse. Starmer, Davey, Denyer/Ramsay, Sturgeon... all of them more trustworthy than Johnson.
Even if? The only current party leader who is arguably less suited is Neil Hamilton, and then it's a coin flip.
Everything, probably not. Can we trust any of enough to risk it - no. He has a demonstrable track record of lying in each and every forum he's had access to, from his journalism through his support for Brexit, and then onto his career as Foreign Secretary and now Prime Minister.
Not that I've seen any evidence of, no. He appears to have a disinterest in anyone else and a self-importance that leans towards an amateur diagnosis that he's a sociopath.
Are the many, many, many, many demonstrable things he has done wrong not enough? Even if you disagree with the balance of interests he represents politically, he's a fundamentally dishonest, callous, obnoxiously self-important twat. There are competent, professional, thoughtful Conservative politicians that I disagree with on policy but can accept on the basis of the parliamentary system we have in this country, but that a party would put that cockwomble up as their leader is just inconceivable to me.
O.
Accurate summary.
-
This thread has been an interesting read for someone like me who really cannot get passionate about politics!
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
1. Why bother responding in that case. (for example, it is very rare you will see me post anything about sport because I don't give even one flying fuck for it. So I don't bother)
2. You are (or were until very recently) a member of the Conservative Party. That sort of undermines your claim about not being passionate about politics.
-
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
The answer is simpler than that - my decreasing levels of energy and available activities leave me with a lack of things to occupy my mind. The Saturday DT crosswords are too often more like toughies than more aimed at the weekend solver and, much as I am still enjoying re-reading 'Origins', it is not the same as reading visually. 1. Why bother responding in that case. (for example, it is very rare you will see me post anything about sport because I don't give even one flying fuck for it. So I don't bother)
I suppose Politics counts as a last resort for me!2. You are (or were until very recently) a member of the Conservative Party. That sort of undermines your claim about not being passionate about politics.
No, it just means I used to do helpful things such as delivering leaflets (I'd had to leave teaching with minimal warning) and the Club organised days out and the food was good. Also I got to know some interesting people.
-
You delivered leaflets and you claim you are not passionate. How is your cognitive dissonance coming along?
SusanDoris read this and tell me I'm wrong to say he is unfit for office:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/19/1000-days-of-boris-johnson-as-prime-minister-proroguing-parliament-partygate
Or if you think The Guardian is too left-wing try Peter Oborne who is not left-wing at all and is in fact a Tory:
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
This, for me, goes way beyond the fact that Johnson is a Conservative PM, it is the fact that he is totally unfit for office, in no way that any previous leader of any party has been. If you are unable to see that then all your claims about looking at issues rationally can be dismissed as nonsense because you are unable to look at this man's record dispassionately and conclude that he is a disaster for our economy, our health, and our democracy.
One final quote for you from his old school (Eton):
"Boris really has adopted a disgracefully cavalier attitude to his classical studies. [He] sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the school for the next half).
"I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else."
Does that resonate at all?
-
I recall seeing an example of Alexander Johnson's characteristic behaviour which had been recorded and shown in a (I think) BBC news broadcast.
It was at a time, at the beginning of his term as prime minister, when there was concern about about the number of people who were openly sleeping rough and one particular case had become iconic.
A local BBC news reporter showed a photo of the individual concerned on his mobile phone to Johnson, ho snatched the phone out of the reporter's hands and told the reporter to go away. The reporter asked for the phone and Johnson told him to go away. This was a public display of bullying ... and also of criminal behaviour: theft.
I believe that the phone was returned later but that did not change the fact that Johnson had deliberately deprived another person of his property and had the reporter made a formal complaint to a police officer then Johnson could have been charged and found guilty of a criminal act ... of which a video record existed.
If only ...
-
I put forward the turd some neighbour's dog left in my garden overnight, so you no longer have that excuse. Starmer, Davey, Denyer/Ramsay, Sturgeon... all of them more trustworthy than Johnson.
I think the choice is limited to Conservative MPs for the moment.
-
The answer is simpler than that - my decreasing levels of energy and available activities leave me with a lack of things to occupy my mind. The Saturday DT crosswords are too often more like toughies than more aimed at the weekend solver and, much as I am still enjoying re-reading 'Origins', it is not the same as reading visually. I suppose Politics counts as a last resort for me!No, it just means I used to do helpful things such as delivering leaflets (I'd had to leave teaching with minimal warning) and the Club organised days out and the food was good. Also I got to know some interesting people.
And obviously in the case of Swayne support homophobes because the food was good and he was 'interesting'
-
I think the choice is limited to Conservative MPs for the moment.
Are we sure that the turd is not a Tory MP?
-
And obviously in the case of Swayne support homophobes because the food was good and he was 'interesting'
Your non-stop adolescent sarcasm really gets on my tits.
-
Are we sure that the turd is not a Tory MP?
Several other options were put forward in the same comment, none of whom are Tory MPs.
-
No, it just means I used to do helpful things such as delivering leaflets (I'd had to leave teaching with minimal warning) and the Club organised days out and the food was good. Also I got to know some interesting people.
Nope Susan - that doesn't wash.
I used to be a member of a political party (not the Tories of course), and therefore I understand the 'hierarchy' of party political engagement very well. I doubt very much that it is different in the Tories, and it certainly didn't used to be at the time when my parents were both Tory members and Tory activists.
So the first thing to say is that only about 200,000 (compared to the nigh on 14 million who voted tory in 2019). So even in terms of tory supporters, a conservative party member is a very, very rare beast - just 1.4% of tory voters. So simply by being a member suggests a very unusual level of commitment to the conservative party.
Secondly (again unless your party association is very, very different to the one I was closely involved in, which I doubt), most party members are paper members only, not activists - they do absolutely zilch for the party on the ground. There are a smaller group of activists, who actually do stuff and as you were doing stuff you are part of that minority of the minority. Now there tends to be a hierarchy here too - the lowest level of activism tends to be delivering leaflets as it doesn't require you to justify your views on the doorstep (this is where you sit Susan). You then move to higher levels of activism - further subsets who canvass, who stand in elections, who take up officer roles in the party. You don't seem to indicate you got further than a leaflet-delivering party member and activist - but even to be in this position isn't what 'most' people do, nor even 'many' people - it is a tiny number politically engaged and passionate enough who do this - that's you Susan.
I note you also cast off leaflet delivering as 'helpful' - helpful to whom? Well obviously helpful to the Conservative party as leaflets are all about getting people to vote for you by delivering effectively party political propaganda - they serve no other meaningful function.
Finally - you mention a 'club' - well presumably that is a Conservative Social Club, such as exists in all sorts of places. But again as far as I am aware these organisations are separate from the Conservative Party and you do not need to be a member of the Conservative Associations (the political party) to be a member of a Conservative Club, nor vice versa. So if you liked the Club and its food you could just have been a member of the club, not also a member of the party, and a political activist at that.
So stop trying to imply that you aren't really political - perhaps you are embarrassed to admit it, but you certainly used to be a Tory party member and activist - and that demonstrates a very high level of engagement in and passion for the Conservative party, given that the vast, vast majority of people aren't members of any political party and even those that are, I suspect most aren't activists.
-
Prof Davey
Well, you can write as many words as you like, suggest anything you like about my motives, commitment, etc etc, but you will be wrong on just about every count. I am so far out on the fringes of the Conservative Party that I've hardly a toe left inside!
-
Prof Davey
Well, you can write as many words as you like, suggest anything you like about my motives, commitment, etc etc, but you will be wrong on just about every count. I am so far out on the fringes of the Conservative Party that I've hardly a toe left inside!
So far on the fringes that you are still supporting the PM, believing that he shouldn't be replaced and supporting a rather odious local MP.
Are you still a member of the Conservative Party Susan, or have you torn up your membership card (not that people actually do that, they just leave or let their membership lapse). If you remain a member it is hard to argue that you are out on the fringes as I've pointed out party members are the hardest of hard core supporters, representing just 1.4% of people who support the Tories by voting for them at the ballot box.
Anyhow - just off to a roundtable meeting which includes as attendees, one Boris Johnson and one Keir Starmer (not that I expect either to turn up).
-
So far on the fringes that you are still supporting the PM,
Try to cite my exact words which say I support the PM.You will not find them. believing that he shouldn't be replaced and supporting a rather odious local MP.
I am still a member, paying only a small subscription, because of what I do not want to see and that is the Labour Party or the Lib Dems in Government.Are you still a member of the Conservative Party Susan, or have you torn up your membership card (not that people actually do that, they just leave or let their membership lapse). If you remain a member it is hard to argue that you are out on the fringes as I've pointed out party members are the hardest of hard core supporters, representing just 1.4% of people who support the Tories by voting for them at the ballot box.
Please explain to me why you think I should accept your interpretation of my views and opinions instead of my own?!!
-
Try to cite my exact words which say I support the PM.You will not find them.
When all around are calling for him to go, if you do not do so then you support him - simple as that.
I am still a member, paying only a small subscription ...
If you are a member - noting that 98.6% of even tory voters aren't members, the it is pretty difficult to argue that you aren't really interested in politics and not really in the tory camp if you remain a tory party member.
-
When all around are calling for him to go, if you do not do so then you support him - simple as that.
If you are a member - noting that 98.6% of even tory voters aren't members, the it is pretty difficult to argue that you aren't really interested in politics and not really in the tory camp if you remain a tory party member.
You can, of course, infer whatever you like, but so far you are inferringwrongly.
-
You can, of course, infer whatever you like, but so far you are inferringwrongly.
So tell me which of my inferences are wrong.
I infer that:
1. You are a tory party member (and indeed an activist, although perhaps not now) and that you have chosen to remain a member when you could have left if you didn't support Boris
2. That you voted tory in the 2019 general election and therefore helped ensure that Boris was elected as PM.
3. On this thread that you have consistently found excuses not to call for Boris to resign
Which of these is wrong - do tell us.
Two further questions for you.
1. As you are a tory party member you will have had a vote in the 2019 leadership election - can you confirm please that you voted for Jeremy Hunt.
2. Do you want Boris to either resign or be removed as PM?
-
If Johnson goes, will it be labelled "Borexit"?
Some people should lay off SD: she doesn't have to justify her voting or party membership to anyone.
-
Try to cite my exact words which say I support the PM. You will not find them. I am still a member, paying only a small subscription, because of what I do not want to see and that is the Labour Party or the Lib Dems in Government. Please explain to me why you think I should accept your interpretation of my views and opinions instead of my own?!!
I can relate to not wanting Labour or Lib Dems in power given their total immersion in trans ideology. Johnson does not appear to care how he is perceived by not parroting Stonewall on this issue so much as I think he is liar and seems to think rules do not apply to him, I would not want him replaced by a Tory who would be scared of standing up to the trans lobby.
Not sure how decisive Labour or Lib Dems or Johnson's replacement would be in relation to arming Ukraine either. The current PM needs to go but maybe not while the war in Ukraine is happening.
-
When all around are calling for him to go, if you do not do so then you support him - simple as that.
You're either with us or with the terrorists!
-
So tell me which of my inferences are wrong.
I infer that:
1. You are a tory party member (and indeed an activist, although perhaps not now) and that you have chosen to remain a member when you could have left if you didn't support Boris
2. That you voted tory in the 2019 general election and therefore helped ensure that Boris was elected as PM.
3. On this thread that you have consistently found excuses not to call for Boris to resign
Which of these is wrong - do tell us.
Two further questions for you.
1. As you are a tory party member you will have had a vote in the 2019 leadership election - can you confirm please that you voted for Jeremy Hunt.
2. Do you want Boris to either resign or be removed as PM?
You really don't know twhen to let things go do you.
-
So tell me which of my inferences are wrong.
I infer that:
1. You are a tory party member (and indeed an activist, although perhaps not now) and that you have chosen to remain a member when you could have left if you didn't support Boris
[Yes, I pay a small sub so I am a member of the Conservative Party. I am most certainly not an activist and even when I was doing this and that, it was more because I liked the social aspect. I see no particular reason why I should leave and curiosity about what's going on that keeps me reading the occasional missive from HQ. To think that I remain a member in order to support Boris doesn't appear on any list of mine.
2. That you voted tory in the 2019 general election and therefore helped ensure that Boris was elected as PM.
I voted FOR the local MP That is all. I chose NOT to vote for any other name on the list. I did not vote for subsequent consequencies.
3. On this thread that you have consistently found excuses not to call for Boris to resign
They were nothing to do with excuses and nothing to do with demanding his resignation. I have consistently pointed out that he is inthe there in the position of PM, has not been pushed out,would possibly/probably still be there even if MPs put someone else forward to replace him, that other things have to happen before a change is possible etc. If you choose to interpret the things I have said as excuses FOR Boris, that is your problem, not mine.
Which of these is wrong - do tell us.
Two further questions for you.
1. As you are a tory party member you will have had a vote in the 2019 leadership election - can you confirm please that you voted for Jeremy Hunt.
Yes, and have said so on several occasions ... I do not lie!
2. Do you want Boris to either resign or be removed as PM?
I do not bother to think about it. One of the reasons I think it is interesting still to have a vote in the Party is that if the option comes up, I can decide which MP to vote for.
-
Not sure how decisive Labour or Lib Dems or Johnson's replacement would be in relation to arming Ukraine either. The current PM needs to go but maybe not while the war in Ukraine is happening.
Don't usually like to say this to your posts Gabriella but that's just bollocks.
If we could change the leader in WW2 I think we'll manage fine now.
Ben Wallace is the man driving our response anyway, thank goodness. He's the politician who has been behind the HoC unified response, way back in November he organised military briefings on Ukraine/Russia for Starmer and the shadow defence secretary. Since then regular briefings for all party leaders.
-
Don't usually like to say this to your posts Gabriella but that's just bollocks.
If we could change the leader in WW2 I think we'll manage fine now.
Absolutely - this notion that we cannot change a leader 'because there is a war on' is total nonsense and just a 'Save Big Dog' tactic from the Boris apologists.
You are correct - Boris seems obsessed by Churchill, but if we mustn't change a leader 'because there is a war on' then he'd never have become PM in WW2. We also changed our leader in WW1, with Lloyd-George becoming leader in 1916.
And these were wars we were actually engaged in - remember we are not currently at war at all.
And the examples go on.
We were at war in Afghanistan when Blair was replaced by Brown, Brown was replaced by Cameron, Cameron was replaced by May and May was replaced by Johnson.
We were at war in Iraq when Blair was replaced by Brown and Brown was replaced by Cameron.
We were effectively at war when Thatcher was replaced by Major - Iraq had invaded Kuwait and we were planning the invasion.
And these are wars we were directly involved in.
In terms of 'there is a war on' that we aren't directly involved in (like the current conflict).
There was a war in Yugoslavia when Major was replaced by Blair; a war in Syria when Cameron was replaced by May and May by Johnson.
Need I go on.
But there is a more significant point - about credibility of your leader on the international stage. Boris has pretty well zero credibility internationally - he is a busted flush, a laughing stock. How can he stand up to Putin when any criticism provides a propaganda open goal for Putin - he has the easiest of repost that Boris lies to his own people and breaks his own laws. Virtually any other leader would have greater international credibility, and that's what we need at the moment.
So not only can we change a leader 'when there is a war on' (as history tells us) but we need to do so precisely because Boris cannot be an effective leader internationally.
-
Prof D
So another rant a boutt why can't we change leaders. My question is:
who is the person who should take his place?
How would you ensure he he/she was willing, had name put forward, would receive approval from all, etc etc?
I don't think you will be able to answer those questions in any practcal,feasible way.
You make many assumptions and assertions about what the rest of the world thinks about UK and its Government? I bet you don't look for any comments that might be supportive!!
-
Prof D
So another rant a boutt why can't we change leaders. My question is:
who is the person who should take his place?
How would you ensure he he/she was willing, had name put forward, would receive approval from all, etc etc?
I don't think you will be able to answer those questions in any practcal,feasible way.
There you go again - turning one question into another.
The point here is whether you think that Boris should go - the issue of who should or might replace him is a separate matter entirely, just as it was when Cameron decided to resign, and when May decided to resign and indeed when Blair and Thatcher decided to resign. In none of those situations was it certain who would replace them.
It is classic obfuscation and apologist territory to argue that person X or person Y shouldn't go because we don't know who might replace them. Again classic Save Big Dog - looks like you've been getting and digesting the party line very well Susan.
-
You make many assumptions and assertions about what the rest of the world thinks about UK and its Government? I bet you don't look for any comments that might be supportive!!
I don't make assumptions at all:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/26/angela-merkel-scores-higher-in-approval-ratings-than-any-current-world-leader
And this was last summer before all the party gate stuff.
Even then Boris was consistently the worst regarded leader (except for Putin and Xi) across a range of key countries. And maybe try googling 'Boris Johnson International Reputation' (an neutral search so no more likely to come up with negative than positive hits). Note the top hits talk about damaging, shredding UK reputation etc.
-
You make many assumptions and assertions about what the rest of the world thinks about UK and its Government? I bet you don't look for any comments that might be supportive!!
Ouch:
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/boris-johnson-uk-prime-minister-what-world-media-saying-beginning-end-1410283
-
There you go again - turning one question into another.
The point here is whether you think that Boris should go - the issue of who should or might replace him is a separate matter entirely, just as it was when Cameron decided to resign, and when May decided to resign and indeed when Blair and Thatcher decided to resign. In none of those situations was it certain who would replace them.
It is classic obfuscation and apologist territory to argue that person X or person Y shouldn't go because we don't know who might replace them. Again classic Save Big Dog - looks like you've been getting and digesting the party line very well Susan.
And there you]/] go again, implying or inferring - take your pifk!! - that Boris will resign. The liklihood of that is small.
Just for fun, why not spend a minute or so reading the first few blog posts of Sir Desmond Swayne and then tell me if you cannot find a word here and there which is not the worst of opinions with not a redeeming feature.
I will accept a similar opposing challenge ...
-
Ouch:
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/boris-johnson-uk-prime-minister-what-world-media-saying-beginning-end-1410283
It's "pick out the bits we want to write" time again!
Unfortunately, I shall not be here when a detached view of this period's history is written.
-
And there you]/] go again, implying or inferring - take your pifk!! - that Boris will resign. The liklihood of that is small.
Again changing the question.
My question isn't whether you think Boris will resign/be ousted by his MPs due to his lying and law breaking. Nope my question is whether you think he should resign/be ousted by his MPs due to his lying and law breaking.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that he isn't going to resign/be ousted but also to think that he should resign - I suspect that is a very, very mainstream view in the UK at the moment. But that he might not resign/be ousted has no bearing on whether I think he should resign/be ousted. I do think he should resign or be ousted - why is this such a difficult question for you to address Susan.
But you seem constantly to avoid the question - it isn't a difficult one is it Susan. All I can conclude by your constant avoidance of answering this simple question is that you want him to stay but are too embarrassed to say.
-
It's "pick out the bits we want to write" time again!
Unfortunately, I shall not be here when a detached view of this period's history is written.
I am not 'picking out the bits' - quite the reverse - hence also using polling (this doesn't pick out the bits) and suggesting googling using a neutral phrase.
Susan - you may not be around when a detached view is written but do you really think it will be more favourable? If so, why?
-
Again changing the question.
My question isn't whether you think Boris will resign/be ousted by his MPs due to his lying and law breaking. Nope my question is whether you think he should resign/be ousted by his MPs due to his lying and law breaking.
If the 'lying and law-breaking' was clearly stated as being everything he has done in the past as well as the 'party-gate' business, then he wouldn't be in place now. And I might possibly take it into account as a very important issue - which I do not.
But it isn't, it is just focused on the "crime" for which he has to pay a fine and is most certainly not under threat of being put in prison, then no, I think it is too petty a matter. A resignation would be out of all proportion - which is perhaps why is in fact still in place.It is perfectly reasonable to think that he isn't going to resign/be ousted but also to think that he should resign - I suspect that is a very, very mainstream view in the UK at the moment.
It is the one picked up by the left-wing journalists and broadcasters who know it will make more noise and sell a few more newspapers, but if I could use these social media, I bet I'd find a large number who prefer him to remain in post, much as you personally do not like it!But that he might not resign/be ousted has no bearing on whether I think he should resign/be ousted. I do think he should resign or be ousted - why is this such a difficult question for you to address Susan.
No, I do not think he should resign at the moment, or for the present storm in a teacup or with the current political situation. But you seem constantly to avoid the question - it isn't a difficult one is it Susan. All I can conclude by your constant avoidance of answering this simple question is that you want him to stay but are too embarrassed to say
I am never embarressed to express any view. I jjust think it is being blown up out of all proportion and as is evident from the lack of huge demands for his resignation from those who have the power to try and force it, he isn't resigning.
-
Looking at some of the comments from Tory MPs in the HoC debate today, such as Steve Baker, I suspect Johnson is already toast, and his demise is just a matter of timing.
-
If the 'lying and law-breaking' was clearly stated as being everything he has done in the past as well as the 'party-gate' business, then he wouldn't be in place now. And I might possibly take it into account as a very important issue - which I do not.
But it isn't, it is just focused on the "crime" for which he has to pay a fine and is most certainly not under threat of being put in prison, then no, I think it is too petty a matter. A resignation would be out of all proportion - which is perhaps why is in fact still in place.It is the one picked up by the left-wing journalists and broadcasters who know it will make more noise and sell a few more newspapers, but if I could use these social media, I bet I'd find a large number who prefer him to remain in post, much as you personally do not like it!No, I do not think he should resign at the moment, or for the present storm in a teacup or with the current political situation. I am never embarressed to express any view. I jjust think it is being blown up out of all proportion and as is evident from the lack of huge demands for his resignation from those who have the power to try and force it, he isn't resigning.
Tell us again, how you aren't supporting and defending him, and how you aren't an active supporter.
You've even gone on a left-wing journalist rant. Typical Tory behaviour. You're too funny.
-
Tell us again, how you aren't supporting and defending him, and how you aren't an active supporter.
You've even gone on a left-wing journalist rant. Typical Tory behaviour. You're too funny.
:) certainly a sense of humour is necessary! I shall be shutting down the computer in a minute, but although I have had a pleasant afternoon reading and responding, I have not wasted a second becoming in the smallest degree worked up!! I am far too keen on remaining alive to do that and in any case, it is just not in mynature to do so.
When I hear about the appalling behaviour of the Russian Orthodox Church, Putin and his authorisation of the killing of thousands because of the Ukrainian's Orthodox Church splitting from the Russsian . oneI am so saddened, but doing any ranting of any kind about that won't help them and it certainly won't help me stay alive to read it.
-
Tell us again, how you aren't supporting and defending him, and how you aren't an active supporter.
You've even gone on a left-wing journalist rant. Typical Tory behaviour. You're too funny.
The BJ apologists continually insist that we should draw a line under such 'trivial' matters and let Johnson get to grips with far more important things on the world stage. His opponents are accused of wasting valuable time. Well, the parliamentary debate today has convinced me (I didn't need much convincing) that it is Johnson himself who is wasting time, and has been for a long while. Constant obfuscation, weasel words and crocodile tears, outright lies, simply because he can't bring himself to do the decent thing, and get his fat arse out of the way, and allow somebody with a stronger moral compass to come forward. There must be be one or two in the Tory party with enough intellect, energy and true sense of right and wrong to take over. The idea that Johnson is 'indispensable' at the present time is laughable.
-
The BJ apologists continually insist that we should draw a line under such 'trivial' matters and let Johnson get to grips with far more important things on the world stage. His opponents are accused of wasting valuable time. Well, the parliamentary debate today has convinced me (I didn't need much convincing) that it is Johnson himself who is wasting time, and has been for a long while. Constant obfuscation, weasel words and crocodile tears, outright lies, simply because he can't bring himself to do the decent thing, and get his fat arse out of the way, and allow somebody with a stronger moral compass to come forward. There must be be one or two in the Tory party with enough intellect, energy and true sense of right and wrong to take over. The idea that Johnson is 'indispensable' at the present time is laughable.
I go back to a question I have asked several times: Name an NP likely to be successful in getting voted in if the PM did resign.
All the blusterand outrage expressed by those who are anti-Conservative regardless of any merit anywhere are wasting energy. I refuse to do any of that. I look at things from as impartial a way as I can.
-
No, I do not think he should resign at the moment, or for the present storm in a teacup or with the current political situation.
So there we have it ... finally Susan comes off the fence (not that your view hasn't been clear all along - you have just avoided expressing it). So you are in support of Boris - clear and simply, no further explanation needed. But why would we expect anything else from a tory voting, tory party member and ex tory activist.
I am never embarressed to express any view.
Could have fooled me, seeing as it has been like pulling teeth to get you to answer a simple question - whether you think Boris should resign/be ousted.
-
It is the one picked up by the left-wing journalists and broadcasters who know it will make more noise and sell a few more newspapers, but if I could use these social media, I bet I'd find a large number who prefer him to remain in post, much as you personally do not like it!
The way to gauge opinion on such matter is neither to look at social media, nor to read newspaper op-eds. Nope it is to look at reputable opinion polling.
So of course there are some people who don't want Boris to go - there will always be people who hold minority opinions. But the polling is clear - by a very wide margin people think that Boris is lying and that he should resign.
In the most recent polling an astonishing 78% think he lied over party gate compared to just 8% who don't think he lied. And across a range of recent polls by a margin of typically two to one the public think he should resign.
So, sure, clearly just a few left wing journalists eh!
-
I go back to a question I have asked several times: Name an NP likely to be successful in getting voted in if the PM did resign.
Sadly it would be another Tory - but surely they have someone who would be an improvement on Johnson: that is a pretty low bar, and if they have nobody better than him then we are all, to use a technical term, fucked.
All the blusterand outrage expressed by those who are anti-Conservative regardless of any merit anywhere are wasting energy. I refuse to do any of that. I look at things from as impartial a way as I can.
So far as I can see the current Tory party are a merit-free zone, so we need rid of Johnson and his party.
-
Name an NP likely to be successful in getting voted in if the PM did resign.
Always a bit of a gamble to pick a winner in a tory leadership election. But there most certainly will be a winner in the inevitable leadership election which will happen if Boris resigns or is ousted.
So it is a bit of a non-point isn't it Susan - that we don't know who might win a leadership election has no bearing on whether we might think that Boris should go.
-
Sadly it would be another Tory - but surely they have someone who would be an improvement on Johnson: that is a pretty low bar, and if they have nobody better than him then we are all, to use a technical term, fucked.
So far as I can see the current Tory party are a merit-free zone, so we need rid of Johnson and his party.
Good points Gordon.
And interestingly this is where I think we've reached cross-over. Effectively that the best plan for the tories to have any chance to retain power is to get rid of Boris, while for the opposition he is the gift that keeps giving, and realistically they'd love him to hang on kicking and screaming for another couple of years prior to an electoral drubbing.
-
Boris has failed to block an investigation by the Privileges Committee into whether he lied to parliament.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61177313
He'd originally tried to ensure that tory MPs were whipped into opposing the investigation, but clearly wasn't able to persuade his backbenchers to support him so ended up U-turning.
-
I suspect that he may jump, or be pushed (but no doubt, if pushed, he will claim that he actually jumped voluntarily) before this gets as far as the Privileges Committee.
It has been reported that although the police won't make announcements about further fines, should Johnson get another fine that will be made public, and if that happens I reckon he will be 'invited' to resign.
The sooner the better.
-
Don't usually like to say this to your posts Gabriella but that's just bollocks.
If we could change the leader in WW2 I think we'll manage fine now.
Changing the leader during a war is ok - I was specifically talking about whether other potential leaders would be as supportive of arming Ukraine as Johnson. If they are then fine. If they are not, then I'd rather keep Johnson for now despite him breaking the law and misleading Parliament and every other stupid thing he has done in the past - if that helps Ukraine. Let's face it, Ukraine needs all the help it can get in terms of arms.
Ben Wallace is the man driving our response anyway, thank goodness. He's the politician who has been behind the HoC unified response, way back in November he organised military briefings on Ukraine/Russia for Starmer and the shadow defence secretary. Since then regular briefings for all party leaders.
Ok - then Wallace may be the best person to take over from Johnson.
-
So there we have it ... finally Susan comes off the fence (not that your view hasn't been clear all along - you have just avoided expressing it). So you are in support of Boris - clear and simply, no further explanation needed. But why would we expect anything else from a tory voting, tory party member and ex tory activist.
Could have fooled me, seeing as it has been like pulling teeth to get you to answer a simple question - whether you think Boris should resign/be ousted.
I repeat: Just because I say he should not resign at the moment does not imply that I support him. It simply means exactly what it says that I do not think he should resign at the moment. To jump to the conclusion that therefore I support im is incorrect, false, wrong etc. What I say is what I mean, not what you think/infer/etc I mean.
-
The way to gauge opinion on such matter is neither to look at social media, nor to read newspaper op-eds. Nope it is to look at reputable opinion polling.
So of course there are some people who don't want Boris to go - there will always be people who hold minority opinions. But the polling is clear - by a very wide margin people think that Boris is lying and that he should resign.
In the most recent polling an astonishing 78% think he lied over party gate compared to just 8% who don't think he lied. And across a range of recent polls by a margin of typically two to one the public think he should resign.
So, sure, clearly just a few left wing journalists eh!
It depends on how the question is framed and the response depends on what people think at the moment they are ticking the yes or the no box. And yes they are accurate at the time, but things change all the time. I certainly would not alter my thinkiing or reasoning as a result of any such poll.
-
Sadly it would be another Tory - but surely they have someone who would be an improvement on Johnson: that is a pretty low bar, and if they have nobody better than him then we are all, to use a technical term, fucked.
So far as I can see the current Tory party are a merit-free zone, so we need rid of Johnson and his party.
But you, like me, cannot think of a person to take the PM's place.
-
Always a bit of a gamble to pick a winner in a tory leadership election. But there most certainly will be a winner in the inevitable leadership election which will happen if Boris resigns or is ousted.
So it is a bit of a non-point isn't it Susan - that we don't know who might win a leadership election has no bearing on whether we might think that Boris should go.
Too many if's. Dream on!
-
Good points Gordon.
And interestingly this is where I think we've reached cross-over. Effectively that the best plan for the tories to have any chance to retain power is to get rid of Boris, while for the opposition he is the gift that keeps giving, and realistically they'd love him to hang on kicking and screaming for another couple of years prior to an electoral drubbing.
Again - dream on!
-
I suspect that he may jump, or be pushed (but no doubt, if pushed, he will claim that he actually jumped voluntarily) before this gets as far as the Privileges Committee.
It has been reported that although the police won't make announcements about further fines, should Johnson get another fine that will be made public, and if that happens I reckon he will be 'invited' to resign.
The sooner the better.
For general interest, I quote here a few lines from an e-mail received last night from MP Oliver Dowden: Today, the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer has been forced to correct the record.
Yesterday, Sir Keir Starmer claimed that the Prime Minister “accused the BBC of not being critical enough of Vladimir Putin”.
This was an inaccurate claim - without any evidence to support it.
So yesterday, I called for Sir Keir to retract his comments and apologise to the Prime Minister.
And today, Sir Keir was forced to come to the Commons to correct the record.
-
For general interest, I quote here a few lines from an e-mail received last night from MP Oliver Dowden:
Can't see how that helps the Tories: Starmer corrected himself and the HoC records, whereas Johnson just lies and doesn't correct himself or the records.
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/johnson-in-parliament
PS - I don't think Starmer was "forced" to the HoC yesterday, as Dowden wrongly claims: I think he was planning to be there anyway, since the motion being discussed was in his name, so I hope Dowden will correct his email.
-
But you, like me, cannot think of a person to take the PM's place.
What is wrong with Ben Wallace taking over?
His voting record does not seem very progressive or liberal but on issues such as protection of biological women's rights and Ukraine he seems to be ok. What is your objection to Wallace?
-
What is wrong with Ben Wallace taking over?
His voting record does not seem very progressive or liberal but on issues such as protection of biological women's rights and Ukraine he seems to be ok. What is your objection to Wallace?
I have no objection actually. I do not know enough about him,so I might look himup.
-
Changing the leader during a war is ok - I was specifically talking about whether other potential leaders would be as supportive of arming Ukraine as Johnson. If they are then fine. If they are not, then I'd rather keep Johnson for now despite him breaking the law and misleading Parliament and every other stupid thing he has done in the past - if that helps Ukraine. Let's face it, Ukraine needs all the help it can get in terms of arms.
As it will only be a Tory taking over then I think their response would be similar, although it should be pointed out that the links the Conservatives have with Russian oligarchs and the donations received don't totally convince me that their response has been all it should have been.
As I previously pointed out on another thread at least one Labour leader had the measure of the Russian regime:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs
(Note for those likely to rant about Left wing journalists, it is a right wing journalist who wrote this)
If Starmer was the PM I have no doubt that he would have reacted in a similar way to the current government possibly even more robustly as Labour is not enmeshed in Russian money in the way that the Tories are.
What a shame we are so blinded by the propaganda pumped out by Non doms in this country.
-
As it will only be a Tory taking over then I think their response would be similar, although it should be pointed out that the links the Conservatives have with Russian oligarchs and the donations received don't totally convince me that their response has been all it should have been.
As I previously pointed out on another thread at least one Labour leader had the measure of the Russian regime:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs
(Note for those likely to rant about Left wing journalists, it is a right wing journalist who wrote this)
If Starmer was the PM I have no doubt that he would have reacted in a similar way to the current government possibly even more robustly as Labour is not enmeshed in Russian money in the way that the Tories are.
What a shame we are so blinded by the propaganda pumped out by Non doms in this country.
Yes - I think that's right.
There has been a very broad consensus on support for Ukraine (with one major exception that I'll come to later), so I cannot see any credible evidence that a different PM from the current government, nor if Starmer were PM that they'd have acted differently.
Where there hasn't been consensus is over support for refugees, and here the Government has been absolutely useless - creating bureaucracy, delay and embedding a system where they fail to take their responsibility as a government to support the process of placing refugees who need support with people who are prepared to support. The Homes for Ukraine scheme is laughable as it is predicated on a UK person with a home knowing a refugee needing support, and in most cases they simply don't.
So on refugees I suspect if there was a change in leader it wouldn't be any worse, but might be a hell of a lot better.
-
But you, like me, cannot think of a person to take the PM's place.
How very odd Susan.
Just a few posts ago you indicated that you voted for Jeremy Hunt rather than Boris in the leadership election just a couple of years ago. So presumably you prefer him as leader to Boris. Hunt is, of course, still around and seems to me to be a perfectly credible candidate. Last time out he attained sufficient support from MPs to be on the ballot paper so no reason why he shouldn't again. Add to that that he has been detached from the current mess of Government as he's not been a minister, he's had a 'good' pandemic as chair of the health select committee and doesn't seem to have the obvious sleaze baggage of many of the other main contenders (non-dom, tax evasion etc).
So why aren't you championing your chap Hunt (he was your preferred person previously) - you certainly claimed you preferred him to Boris.
Or maybe we are just engaging in further by-the-book Save Big Dog tory central office tactics. Excuse number 25 - 'well we can't get rid of Boris unless we have an obvious replacement'.
-
I repeat: Just because I say he should not resign at the moment does not imply that I support him.
Laughable.
We have a binary choice - either Boris stays as PM or he goes.
A large majority of the public want him to go, there have been vociferous calls for him to go in parliament and not just on the opposition benches but from members of his own party.
If you think he should stay in that binary choice then you are, without a shadow of doubt, supporting him.
-
Too many if's. Dream on!
Actually there are no if's, just when.
It isn't a matter of if Boris goes, but when - he will go either through resignation or being kicked out eventually. And when he goes there will be a new PM - again not if. The only uncertainties are around when he goes and who takes over.
-
It depends on how the question is framed and the response depends on what people think at the moment they are ticking the yes or the no box. And yes they are accurate at the time, but things change all the time. I certainly would not alter my thinkiing or reasoning as a result of any such poll.
Which is, of course, why you need to look at a range of polls over a period of time. And I'm interested in this and closely follow another Political MB that spends large amounts of time obsessing over polling.
So there have been numerous polls over the past few months asking (using a variety of wording) whether Boris should go or not. All have found strong majorities (typically about two to one) wanting him to go.
You can stick your head in the sands all you like, but that does alter the evidence. You can hope things might change in the future - sure they might do, although I think there has been a tipping point in public opinion on Boris and there is no way back from that. However a change might not be in the direction you want.
I certainly would not alter my thinkiing or reasoning as a result of any such poll.
You might not, but your fellow party members who are MPs most certainly will. Once they perceive Boris as an electoral liability rather than an electoral asset he is toast. And they will gauge this from the polling (both opinion polling and the upcoming local elections and Wakefield by-election).
-
How very odd Susan.
Just a few posts ago you indicated that you voted for Jeremy Hunt rather than Boris in the leadership election just a couple of years ago. So presumably you prefer him as leader to Boris. Hunt is, of course, still around and seems to me to be a perfectly credible candidate. Last time out he attained sufficient support from MPs to be on the ballot paper so no reason why he shouldn't again. Add to that that he has been detached from the current mess of Government as he's not been a minister, he's had a 'good' pandemic as chair of the health select committee and doesn't seem to have the obvious sleaze baggage of many of the other main contenders (non-dom, tax evasion etc).
So why aren't you championing your chap Hunt (he was your preferred person previously) - you certainly claimed you preferred him to Boris.
Or maybe we are just engaging in further by-the-book Save Big Dog tory central office tactics. Excuse number 25 - 'well we can't get rid of Boris unless we have an obvious replacement'.
I will remind you that I said on several occasions that I voted for Jeremy Hunt because he was NOT Boris Johnson.
-
Laughable.
We have a binary choice - either Boris stays as PM or he goes.
A large majority of the public want him to go, there have been vociferous calls for him to go in parliament and not just on the opposition benches but from members of his own party.
If you think he should stay in that binary choice then you are, without a shadow of doubt, supporting him.
And yet again you think I should accept your version of my opinions amd not my own? Please explain why.
-
And yet again you think I should accept your version of my opinions amd not my own? Please explain why.
No the problem is that you are arguing in two directions - it is a kind of cognitive dissonance.
In the world of a binary choice - Boris either goes or he stays - you are arguing that you can both support Boris staying and yet not support Boris as PM. That is nonsense. If you support him staying then you are supporting him.
-
I will remind you that I said on several occasions that I voted for Jeremy Hunt because he was NOT Boris Johnson.
Then why on earth aren't you grabbing the opportunity to get rid of the person you claim you didn't want (Boris) in favour of the person you did (Hunt). Presumably if you felt him worthy of your vote for not being Boris then you would presumably consider him to be an improvement on Boris. Yet you keep implying that Boris shouldn't go as you cannot think of anyone better (Save Big Dog tactic number 25).
You really do need to get your arguments straight, both on this one and your Schrodingers argument of both supporting Boris staying as PM (against overwhelming calls for him to go) and yet not supporting Boris as PM.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
-
I just wish all this Tory scandal was happening a bit closer to a general election The public will have largely forgotten about it by thetime it arrives, and may vote them back in. Trouble is, the left is too divided: Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, etc. On the right, there's only really the Tories, whose vote is thus undivided.
-
No the problem is that you are arguing in two directions - it is a kind of cognitive dissonance.
In the world of a binary choice - Boris either goes or he stays - you are arguing that you can both support Boris staying and yet not support Boris as PM. That is nonsense. If you support him staying then you are supporting him.
It may be a binary choice to you, but as far as I'm concerned, there are many different ways to consider the matter. Call it nonsense too, if you like! I'll stick to my own opinions, thank you!
-
Then why on earth aren't you grabbing the opportunity to get rid of the person you claim you didn't want (Boris) in favour of the person you did (Hunt). Presumably if you felt him worthy of your vote for not being Boris then you would presumably consider him to be an improvement on Boris. Yet you keep implying that Boris shouldn't go as you cannot think of anyone better (Save Big Dog tactic number 25).
You really do need to get your arguments straight, both on this one and your Schrodingers argument of both supporting Boris staying as PM (against overwhelming calls for him to go) and yet not supporting Boris as PM.
It makes no sense whatsoever.
At the monent, I am not being asked to vote, candidates are not coming forward to be selected, there are no general elections available, but when they are, then I will listen to arguments and make decisions.
In the meantime, Boris is in position as PM. That is the factual case and there is nothing I can do about it, especially at the moment.
-
It may be a binary choice to you, but as far as I'm concerned, there are many different ways to consider the matter. Call it nonsense too, if you like! I'll stick to my own opinions, thank you!
I'm sorry Susan - where we are at the moment provides a simple binary choice. Either Boris stays as PM or Boris goes as PM.
-
In the meantime, Boris is in position as PM. That is the factual case and there is nothing I can do about it, especially at the moment.
Actually you could do something - you could call on him to go. But you won't do that as you support him staying as PM.
But as I mentioned many times previously this isn't about what actually happens but about what you want to happen - and on that you've been clear that you support Boris staying as PM.
-
I'm sorry Susan - where we are at the moment provides a simple binary choice. Either Boris stays as PM or Boris goes as PM.
No, we do not have a 'choice'. If you think we have, please tell me where it or a ballot paper is. You can think we and everyone else have a choice, but it is all on the range of wishful thinking, not a practical, actual, physical choice.
-
Actually you could do something - you could call on him to go.
So, what do I do? Pick up the phone and demand to speak to Boris? Write him a personal e-mail and expect him to read it? That is farcical.But you won't do that as you support him staying as PM.
No, I won't do that because it is a waste of my time, I do not think he should go at the momentbut you cannot infer from that I support him. Well, you obviously do infer that, but again that is your problem, not mine! But as I mentioned many times previously this isn't about what actually happens but about what you want to happen - and on that you've been clear that you support Boris staying as PM.
Oh really? Even when I have said over and over again that I do not?
-
As it will only be a Tory taking over then I think their response would be similar, although it should be pointed out that the links the Conservatives have with Russian oligarchs and the donations received don't totally convince me that their response has been all it should have been.
As I previously pointed out on another thread at least one Labour leader had the measure of the Russian regime:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs
(Note for those likely to rant about Left wing journalists, it is a right wing journalist who wrote this)
If Starmer was the PM I have no doubt that he would have reacted in a similar way to the current government possibly even more robustly as Labour is not enmeshed in Russian money in the way that the Tories are.
What a shame we are so blinded by the propaganda pumped out by Non doms in this country.
Yes very true about Corbyn. I agree about the propaganda. After you said that I went and looked into it a bit more deeply. Seems you are right about propaganda from politicians and media on both sides.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/
-
Changing the leader during a war is ok -
It happened twice in World War 2 and once in World War 1.
Of course we (the UK) are not in a war at the moment.
-
So, what do I do? Pick up the phone and demand to speak to Boris? Write him a personal e-mail and expect him to read it? That is farcical. No, I won't do that because it is a waste of my time, I do not think he should go at the momentbut you cannot infer from that I support him. Well, you obviously do infer that, but again that is your problem, not mine! Oh really? Even when I have said over and over again that I do not?
From what has been written above and previously I think Susan supports Boris Johnson staying as PM in the current circumstances as she cannot seen a suitable alternative candidate, but she does not support Boris Johnson. That makes sense to me - so not sure what is hard to understand.
If there was someone she thought was a better candidate for PM in the current circumstances she would consider it. She does not seem to have looked into other candidates and formed an opinion that there is a suitable alternative, therefore is not prepared to state she wants Boris Johnson to go until she has looked into it.
I don't subscribe to the black and white thinking of either you are with Boris Johnson or against him. Situations are usually a lot more nuanced and while this adversarial style of politics can be fun, I don't think it achieves anything meaningful or paints us in a good light. We become just like the politicians we despise IMO.
I think the adversarial arguments about religion are equally fun but make us look stupid. Religion is also a nuanced issue.
-
Gabriella
I like your post! Thank you for writing it.
-
Daily Mail and the cause of inflation
-
Daily Mail and the cause of inflation
Can you explain that? The Daily Mail is outraged that many Bank of England employees don't feel the need to go to the office most days (why should they?) but I doubt if it has a direct bearing on the uselessness of our esteaming prime minister.
-
Can you explain that? The Daily Mail is outraged that many Bank of England employees don't feel the need to go to the office most days (why should they?) but I doubt if it has a direct bearing on the uselessness of our esteaming prime minister.
It's just another plank of his ideas. I didn't think it needed a thread of its own and thought it would fit here.
-
The PM pissing on the graves of the dead.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61557064
-
IF.
-
IF.
Reposted as text
If (Downing Street Party Remix)
If you can keep your job when all around you
Lies ravaged from what it is you've done;
If intellect and common sense confound you
And if integrity you have but none;
If vou can lie and not be tired by lying,
And pretend you act for the public good,
But then leave the people to their dying
And say you did, sadly, all you could:
If vou can dream - of nothing more than power;
If you can think - but only of yourself;
If you believe this country's finest hour
Is when the chosen few can gain more wealth;
If you can flout the law with bluff and bluster
And not care whether you are believed,
Or deny with scorn every single blunder
And not care how many you may deceive:
If you can stir up hatred, fear and violence
To create division to suit your ends;
And answer cries for help with silence,
And then laugh about it with your friends:
If you can stretch this country to its limit
Or until it is you've had your fun,
Yours is this land and everything that's in it,
And - as you wished - you'll be PM, my son.
-- Brian Bilston
https://www.facebook.com/BrianBilston
-
JeremyP
Thank you for printing out the verse. Very clever of course and an interesting read for all those who think he is just going to do what all the phone-in complainers say they want, I think they are wrong!
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61607739
Ah ... let's just water down the standards required ?
Under the new rules, possible sanctions for breaching the code could include a "public apology, remedial action, or removal of ministerial salary for a period".
In a statement, the government says it would be "disproportionate" for a minister to lose their job for "any breach" of the ministerial code.
-
.
-
.
-
(https://scontent-lcy1-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/282187391_5350115261713736_138575377643825710_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=Nb9Na-D4GBsAX9Y4k0g&_nc_ht=scontent-lcy1-2.xx&oh=00_AT-U88JuZ7jlL5GS4kUezrWB3OADpF1u8ZeQkTPJhYz91A&oe=629D407C)
-
...
-
Tories 2021: "There was no booze"
Tories 2022: "There were no boos"
-
Vote of confidence today:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/06/boris-johnson-face-confidence-vote-scores-tory-mps-call-on-him-to-go
-
Does anyone else recall an incident when there was much concern about homeless people sleeping in shop doorways and the like?
A tv reporter approached Alexander Johnson, showed him an image on his mobile phone of a particular case and asked him what was being done. Johnson snatched the phone out of the reporter's hand, put it into his own pocket and told the reporter to bugger off.
If the reporter had then gone to the police and reported a theft, presenting a video of the incident as evidence, we might not be in the position which currently presents itself. Johnson would have been found guilty.
And that would have been that. Johnson would have retired and gone back to his favourite pastime ... producing specimens of homo sapiens 50% of whose genetic material was provided by him.
-
I think he'll be glad this is happening before the Wakefield by election but it does create the scenario where he survives, and Wakefield is catastophically bad, and that isvtyen seen as down to his survival.
-
Does anyone else recall an incident when there was much concern about homeless people sleeping in shop doorways and the like?
A tv reporter approached Alexander Johnson, showed him an image on his mobile phone of a particular case and asked him what was being done. Johnson snatched the phone out of the reporter's hand, put it into his own pocket and told the reporter to bugger off.
If the reporter had then gone to the police and reported a theft, presenting a video of the incident as evidence, we might not be in the position which currently presents itself. Johnson would have been found guilty.
And that would have been that. Johnson would have retired and gone back to his favourite pastime ... producing specimens of homo sapiens 50% of whose genetic material was provided by him.
He gave it back during the interview so I doubt there was any chance of a prosecution. Doesn't mean that the incident does not show him as an unpleasant thug.
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/boris-johnson-snatches-reporters-phone-after-refusing-to-look-at-child-asleep-on-hospital-floor-170242/
-
If I were one of those thinking I had a chance at taking over from him, I would be persuading all my allies to vote for him.
You don't want to take over when inflation and interest rates are climbing. You don't want to be the leader that picks up after Wakefield.
You want the vote out of the way for this year. You expect that there will be one next year, when it will be less than 18 months till the GE. You want him damaged but there for that next year as a sineater for the electorate.
-
If I were one of those thinking I had a chance at taking over from him, I would be persuading all my allies to vote for him.
You don't want to take over when inflation and interest rates are climbing. You don't want to be the leader that picks up after Wakefield.
You want the vote out of the way for this year. You expect that there will be one next year, when it will be less than 18 months till the GE. You want him damaged but there for that next year as a sineater for the electorate.
A fair assessment of what Tory politicians are currently thinking. If thinking is a concept that you can credit them with.
-
Not that you needed any proof of what a lying, duplicitous, pompous arrogant shit Rees Mogg is, but this is worth remembering:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/rees-mogg-says-pm-stays-even-if-he-wins-by-one-vote-but-previous-comments-come-back-to-haunt-him-325299/?
-
Have to laugh at the messages from a variety of Tory cabinet-fuckwits, such as Gove, all asserting that Boris the Liar got the "big calls" right: they are clearly at it, else they are delusional: they seem to be forgetting the chaos of Brexit and the form of Brexit he advanced, hence the problems in NI right now.
-
Have to laugh at the messages from a variety of Tory cabinet-fuckwits, such as Gove, all asserting that Boris the Liar got the "big calls" right: they are clearly at it, else they are delusional: they seem to be forgetting the chaos of Brexit and the form of Brexit he advanced, hence the problems in NI right now.
He knows his Wodehouse, so he can't be all bad.
-
Liar lies about lying
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-lie-career-general-election-brexit-itv-a9225601.html
-
211 - 148 ooft!
-
211 - 148 ooft!
#
210 MPs plus one lying hypocrite vote for one lying hypocrite.
-
#
210 MPs plus one lying hypocrite vote for one lying hypocrite.
Oh I think there was more than one of those voting, just only one being voted for.
-
And yet, and yet ... ... there is still no -one stepping forward to try to be the next PM.
-
And yet, and yet ... ... there is still no -one stepping forward to try to be the next PM.
Tactics. Announcing that you want to be PM before there's a vacancy pretty much guarantees that you won't be. They're all waiting ntil he finally goes.
-
In some ways an excellent result - over the next few months the Tory party will, hopefully, continue to implode to the extent of making themselves unelectable.
I do hope that some rumours in circulation, albeit already denied, turn out to be true: that Johnson might call a snap GE rather than wait for his party to dispose of him, in the hope that the electorate in some parts of the UK will save his skin - at the very least it would be a chance to get the Tories out of Scotland, and hopefully enough of the electorate elsewhere in the UK would turn against them too.
Might be worth buying in some extra popcorn!
-
In some ways an excellent result - over the next few months the Tory party will, hopefully, continue to implode to the extent of making themselves unelectable.
I do hope that some rumours in circulation, albeit already denied, turn out to be true: that Johnson might call a snap GE rather than wait for his party to dispose of him, in the hope that the electorate in some parts of the UK will save his skin - at the very least it would be a chance to get the Tories out of Scotland, and hopefully enough of the electorate elsewhere in the UK would turn against them too.
Might be worth buying in some extra popcorn!
Anything which removes that upooper crust Jack from any levers of power is fine by me.
-
"Fixed penalty notices: 126 Backbones: 148,'
HIGNFY/ Gary Linekar
-
But what are they going to vote FOR?
-
But what are they going to vote FOR?
Leave it out SD, we know you are secretly in love with Boris, but really you are getting as embarrassing as Nad the Mad.
They'll scurry around and undermine Johnson (not that he needs any help) and eventually he'll topple and then they'll choose from a number of front runners, Hunt & Tugendhat both seem keen, so we'll probably end up with one of the no-marks from the cabinet. Maybe Dominic (I didn't understand the importance of the channel crossing) Raab, or Pritti (send the opposition to Rwanda) Patel or the old favourite Rishi (non-dom) Sunak.
Truly the choices are endless in their ability to match the non-talent who is the current incumbent. So no need to fret SD. The current level of incompetence will be maintained.
-
Boris Johnson is now the political equipment of what I believe is called a turtleshead. I.e a piece of half excreted faeces.
-
But what are they going to vote FOR?
Not having a PM who broke the law and lied to Parliament about it.
-
The constant implication that I do not think through, clearly, practically and dispassionately the ins and outs, possibilities and outcomes could you know, be just a tad annoying if I was the kind of person who wasted time on such unnecessary comments!I have never blindly followed any cause or trend etc and have no intention of starting that now!
-
Leave it out SD, we know you are secretly in love with Boris, but really you are getting as embarrassing as Nad the Mad.
They'll scurry around and undermine Johnson (not that he needs any help) and eventually he'll topple and then they'll choose from a number of front runners, Hunt & Tugendhat both seem keen, so we'll probably end up with one of the no-marks from the cabinet. Maybe Dominic (I didn't understand the importance of the channel crossing) Raab, or Pritti (send the opposition to Rwanda) Patel or the old favourite Rishi (non-dom) Sunak.
Truly the choices are endless in their ability to match the non-talent who is the current incumbent. So no need to fret SD. The current level of incompetence will be maintained.
But with Nadine Dorries at the helm, at least British cultural life will be successfully maintained. /sarcasm, for the Sheldon Coopers out there.
-
...
They'll scurry around and undermine Johnson (not that he needs any help) and eventually he'll topple and then they'll choose from a number of front runners, Hunt & Tugendhat both seem keen, so we'll probably end up with one of the no-marks from the cabinet. Maybe Dominic (I didn't understand the importance of the channel crossing) Raab, or Pritti (send the opposition to Rwanda) Patel or the old favourite Rishi (non-dom) Sunak.
...
From Johnson's pov. I think the next step is to hunker in and fortify the parapets. The existing cabinet seem well subdued and can be moved out and replaced if showing any backbone. He has already put anyone showing signs of both integrity and competence in the backbenches or out of the commons completely.
I don't think he is moving on anytime soon. Meanwhile, the country will lurch from crisis to crisis.
-
Interesting analysis by Peter Oborne:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-boris-johnson-confidence-vote-billionaires-useful-idiot?
If you don't want to read the whole thing the meat of the article is this:
The billionaire class put their man, Boris Johnson, in Downing Street three years ago. He suits them well because he does what they want. Johnson is at the apex of a system of government that hands out contracts, supplies favours, slashes regulation, attacks the rule of law, reduces the rights of working people, and favours the marketplace above the state.
The brilliance of Boris Johnson is that he does all of this while pretending to be on the side of ordinary working people. That’s why the super-rich love Boris, the billionaire's useful idiot.
-
John Crace hits the spot, as usual.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/operation-save-big-dog-ramps-up-the-day-after-the-boris-music-died
-
Pritti Patel reserves 148 seats on the next flight to Rwanda.
HIGNFY
-
And yet, and yet ... ... there is still no -one stepping forward to try to be the next PM.
It's something of a poisoned chalice at the moment. Would you want to be running a country that has been crippled by Brexit and COVID and is thus experiencing record inflation and is likely about to go into recession?
-
The brilliance of Boris Johnson is that he does all of this while pretending to be on the side of ordinary working people.
Are there any ordinary working people who still buy that one?
-
Are there any ordinary working people who still buy that one?
Unfortunately going by a vox pop I saw on the BBC yesterday from Redcar the answer to that is sadly a yes.
Some people really do seem to be falling for the "got the big decisions on the pandemic and Brexit right" line that is pushed at every opportunity, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
-
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1072990467598385152?t=0Jh8jeiHRVfHG-umRXCqkQ&s=19
According to Rees-Mogg this is good for Boris, but worse for May when she had less votes against her. Never understood this kind of loyalty. Bojo probably looks down on him because he's not a real toff! Both idiots though.
-
'We don't need no stinking ethics'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61819747
-
'We don't need no stinking ethics'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61819747
Johnson thinks ethics is the county to the North of Kent.
-
Well we know what the people of Honiton, Tiverton and Wakefield think the answer to the title question is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61920000
The Conservative Party chairman resigned at 5.35am. Chris Mason thinks that is a sign of desperation. I think he was just looking for an excuse to get out.
-
I have long thought that Alexander Johnson really wants to have been Prime Minister. This brings with it a problem - to have been Prime Minister one actually has to be Prime Minister for a period of time.
He is fortunate in that his term in No 10 will turn out to be one of the most memorable and the many descendents of his numerous offspring will be able to read of their ancestor in their history books. Unfortunately for them, however, it may be with shame at his likely portrayal as the worst prime minister in British history.
-
Well we know what the people of Honiton, Tiverton and Wakefield think the answer to the title question is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61920000
The Conservative Party chairman resigned at 5.35am. Chris Mason thinks that is a sign of desperation. I think he was just looking for an excuse to get out.
Dowden has been spineless throughout and his resignation letter continues that ...
"somebody must take responsibility" means what? He is taking responsibility? Johnson should take responsibility and resign? He should spell it out and admit he was wrong to support this pathetic pretence of a government.
-
I have long thought that Alexander Johnson really wants to have been Prime Minister. This brings with it a problem - to have been Prime Minister one actually has to be Prime Minister for a period of time.
He is fortunate in that his term in No 10 will turn out to be one of the most memorable and the many descendents of his numerous offspring will be able to read of their ancestor in their history books. Unfortunately for them, however, it may be with shame at his likely portrayal as the worst prime minister in British history.
Yeah, well, then he is stuck and the country is stuck with him as the Tories don't have anyone capable of persuading the country that their incompetent government and stupid policies are worth voting for.
-
Actually, it is quiet worrying that despite all, Starmer does not seem to be making policies and taking stands that are explainable and graspable by the general public.
-
Actually, it is quiet worrying that despite all, Starmer does not seem to be making policies and taking stands that are explainable and graspable by the general public.
I think I'd call it more like 'desperately worrying that there doesn't seem to be anyone anywhere who inspires.
-
I have long thought that Alexander Johnson really wants to have been Prime Minister. This brings with it a problem - to have been Prime Minister one actually has to be Prime Minister for a period of time.
He is fortunate in that his term in No 10 will turn out to be one of the most memorable and the many descendents of his numerous offspring will be able to read of their ancestor in their history books. Unfortunately for them, however, it may be with shame at his likely portrayal as the worst prime minister in British history.
And with any luck, the last british prime minister.
-
Actually, it is quiet worrying that despite all, Starmer does not seem to be making policies and taking stands that are explainable and graspable by the general public.
But what can you expect? Our First-Past-The-Post voting system and insistence that our legislature should occupy a simulated medieval church choir means that we are stuck with a parliamentary system which adversarial in operation and tribal in its philosophical basis..
-
But what can you expect? Our First-Past-The-Post voting system and insistence that our legislature should occupy a simulated medieval church choir means that we are stuck with a parliamentary system which adversarial in operation and tribal in its philosophical basis..
Very true. Much though I'm a Labour supporter I'm hoping that at the next election we have a hung parliament leading to some sort of coalition between LD's & Labour that leads to real electoral reforms.
I am aware that is quite a lot of heavy lifting that my hope has to do right there.
-
I think I'd call it more like 'desperately worrying that there doesn't seem to be anyone anywhere who inspires.
Not sure inspiration is required.
The groundwork has to be done: This means honestly assessing the situation as it is now and to put together plans which will benefit the whole of society, not special groups or interests. The compromises and trade-offs must be explicitly made clear and be reasoned. It must be obvious that the policies will work to meet the objectives set and be implementable without causing unmanageable side effects.
Then, if there, inspiration would be great.
-
But what can you expect? Our First-Past-The-Post voting system and insistence that our legislature should occupy a simulated medieval church choir means that we are stuck with a parliamentary system which adversarial in operation and tribal in its philosophical basis..
That is the system we have. Before it can be changed, any government that wants to change it has to be elected under it.
-
Very true. Much though I'm a Labour supporter I'm hoping that at the next election we have a hung parliament leading to some sort of coalition between LD's & Labour that leads to real electoral reforms.
I am aware that is quite a lot of heavy lifting that my hope has to do right there.
I think the different parties should already be talking to each other about how electoral reform could be addressed. I'd go for a plan for a citizens assembly to consider it, consult and propose an updated system in the next parliament. Then the election could be fought in the normal way, with or without tactical voting, other deals between parties or coalitions?
Our tribal/adversarial system doesn't mean that everyone has to be unreasonable all the time.
-
I think the different parties should already be talking to each other about how electoral reform could be addressed.
Unfortunately, unless I've missed something the Labour party is uninterested in electoral reform, except for this group within Labour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Campaign_for_Electoral_Reform
This is slightly encouraging but I don't detect any support for the idea by the party leadership.
That would leave the Greens talking to the Libdems, so unless there is a seismic shift in who the voters choose it won't get us very far.
-
Very true. Much though I'm a Labour supporter I'm hoping that at the next election we have a hung parliament leading to some sort of coalition between LD's & Labour that leads to real electoral reforms.
I am aware that is quite a lot of heavy lifting that my hope has to do right there.
British progressive politics is bedevilled by its fissiparous tendency. The Lib Dems and Labour should have amalgamated years ago, and then there's the Greens and the Nationalist parties... The Tories manage to stay as one party. Why can't the left?
-
British progressive politics is bedevilled by its fissiparous twndency. The Lib Dems and Labour should have amalgamated years ago, and then there's the Greens and the Nationalist parties... The Tories manage to stay as one party. Why can't the left?
British progressive politics is bedevilled by a voting system reducing all political activity into two megaparties which are not representative of the population. Effective governance is not provided when just two large clumps mouth insults at each other. The interests of the majority of the population are not well served by "left" or "right" but by "centre".
-
Unfortunately, unless I've missed something the Labour party is uninterested in electoral reform, except for this group within Labour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Campaign_for_Electoral_Reform
This is slightly encouraging but I don't detect any support for the idea by the party leadership.
That would leave the Greens talking to the Libdems, so unless there is a seismic shift in who the voters choose it won't get us very far.
One suspects that Labourites find more satisfaction in arguing ideological points between themselves than in trying to progress real progressive change in the country/world.
The complete inability of Starmer to answer simple questions in a comprehensible way also points to this.
-
British progressive politics is bedevilled by a voting system reducing all political activity into two megaparties which are not representative of the population. Effective governance is not provided when just two large clumps mouth insults at each other. The interests of the majority of the population are not well served by "left" or "right" but by "centre".
Based on Johnson's interview by Mishal Husain (Today programme), he is going to continuing treating the public as idiots. As this seems to work for him maybe the majority of the population just deserve this shoddy state of affairs?
-
Based on Johnson's interview by Mishal Husain (Today programme), he is going to continuing treating the public as idiots. As this seems to work for him...
Now, he's the first rat refusing to flee a sinking ship.
-
Now, he's the first rat refusing to flee a sinking ship.
In which case let's hope he drowns, and takes his government and party with him.
-
One suspects that Labourites find more satisfaction in arguing ideological points between themselves than in trying to progress real progressive change in the country/world.
The complete inability of Starmer to answer simple questions in a comprehensible way also points to this.
This, from Burnham is interesting, and as he notes the grassroots are in favour of PR, just need to persuade the leadership.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/25/why-its-time-for-labour-to-back-proportional-representation?
-
This, from Burnham is interesting, and as he notes the grassroots are in favour of PR, just need to persuade the leadership.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/25/why-its-time-for-labour-to-back-proportional-representation?
Yes, I agree with all or most of that.
-
’A shiver is going around the (Johnson) cabinet looking for a spine to run down”.
Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer
-
Epic trolling on BJ by the Chinese
-
Epic trolling on BJ by the Chinese
Although, ironically, I believe the first statement is true and the second statement is a lie.
-
Carrie Johnson will be 35 on her next birthday. It doesn't seem 5 minutes since she was crawling around on her hands and knees in the office.
FB
-
You wait for ages for a resignation and then two come along at once:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62048657
-
And both try to walk away with blood dripping from hands. Culpable. It's what you supported.
-
And both try to walk away with blood dripping from hands. Culpable. It's what you supported.
Yes. It's taken them so long. This should have happened over the handling of covid not the handling of bottoms.
-
Yes. It's taken them so long. This should have happened over the handling of covid not the handling of bottoms.
Both of them are pricks. That Johnson is a lying prick, and has been for years, while they supported him, just shows why they are also lying pricks.
-
I see Dorries the Brain-Dead says she " I am 💯 behind
@BorisJohnson the PM who consistently gets all the big decisions right." - utterly laughable.
Let's hope there are enough Tory MPs who are prepared to dispense with Johnson and his cabinet of assorted fuckwits, such as Dorries.
-
I see Dorries the Brain-Dead says she " I am 💯 behind
@BorisJohnson the PM who consistently gets all the big decisions right." - utterly laughable.
Let's hope there are enough Tory MPs who are prepared to dispense with Johnson and his cabinet of assorted fuckwits, such as Dorries.
Doesn't really make much difference though. If the lying prick goes he will be replaced by another one.
-
Doesn't really make much difference though. If the lying prick goes he will be replaced by another one.
True
-
As he clings to power like a dried turd on a sheep's tail, I wonder who his new chancellor will be....Nadine, knowing Boris.......
-
You wait for ages for a resignation and then two come along at once:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62048657
Gosh!
-
https://newsthump.com/2022/07/06/i-will-never-ever-leave-you-boris-you-are-my-everything-by-nadine-dorries/?fbclid=IwAR07mBnWNt4G2pPq1ZtU2NZHt_NQGbl9TzSDERZquX_Br2eYonvPuIazGJw
-
Every single fucker that voted Tory. This is what you voted for. Bathe in it.
-
Every single fucker that voted Tory. This is what you voted for. Bathe in it.
Yep.
-
From a friend on FB:
The irony that after all the xenophobia, racism & division caused by Brexit, the right wing majority who voted to keep the brown people out may soon have to decide who they want to lead this country:
Nadhim Zahawi,
Sajid Javid,
Rishi Sunak or
Priti Patel.
Be careful what you wish for.
-
Every single fucker that voted Tory. This is what you voted for. Bathe in it.
That is really a very silly remark and in fact I think I'd call it bigoted. I think perhaps you owe those of us who are intelligent and thoughtful voters of the Conservative Party an apology.
-
From a friend on FB:
The irony that after all the xenophobia, racism & division caused by Brexit, the right wing majority who voted to keep the brown people out may soon have to decide who they want to lead this country:
Nadhim Zahawi,
Sajid Javid,
Rishi Sunak or
Priti Patel.
Be careful what you wish for.
It is certainly ironic. For an ancient person like me, it is somewhat sad to see the lack of 'English'* names in the top jobs in Government. I much admire the Aisian-English MPs who have worked hard to obtain those positions but I suppose it is all part of the general disillusionment of those who might otherwise have decided on a career in politics. *sdeep sighs*
*the word English here used as a cover-all word
-
That is really a very silly remark and in fact I think I'd call it bigoted. I think perhaps you owe those of us who are intelligent and thoughtful voters of the Conservative Party an apology.
Yes, it was a rather silly remark. Of course it wasn't what they voted for. You might as well say that all the 2001 Labour voters voted for the Iraq war.
-
Yes, it was a rather silly remark. Of course it wasn't what they voted for. You might as well say that all the 2001 Labour voters voted for the Iraq war.
Nope. The nature of Johnson was clear for years before he became PM. That analogy doesn't work.
That some voters refused to see those faults speaks volumes for either their own venality or alternatively, naivety.
It is, unfortunately exactly what they voted for.
-
It is certainly ironic. For an ancient person like me, it is somewhat sad to see the lack of 'English'* names in the top jobs in Government. I much admire the Aisian-English MPs who have worked hard to obtain those positions but I suppose it is all part of the general disillusionment of those who might otherwise have decided on a career in politics. *sdeep sighs*
*the word English here used as a cover-all word
It is ironic, for me, it is somewhat sad to see the lack of Mr M.Mouse, Mike Hunt, I.P. nightly in the list of the top jobs in government.
-
It is certainly ironic. For an ancient person like me, it is somewhat sad to see the lack of 'English'* names in the top jobs in Government. I much admire the Aisian-English MPs who have worked hard to obtain those positions but I suppose it is all part of the general disillusionment of those who might otherwise have decided on a career in politics. *sdeep sighs*
What "English" names?
Those that came from Normandy with William the Conqueror? Those that have come from Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Cornwall over the centuries? Those that came with Huguenot refugees? Those that came with Jews chased from their homes in continental Europe?
Are you suggesting that these names are more acceptable than those of immigrants from countries which we colonised and gave their inhabitants the status of British subjects?
I celebrate the presence of people with these names in Government. They are a sign of a multicultural society which - for the most part - is at ease with itself.
-
Nope. The nature of Johnson was clear for years before he became PM. That analogy doesn't work.
That some voters refused to see those faults speaks volumes for either their own venality or alternatively, naivety.
It is, unfortunately exactly what they voted for.
No, it is not. I voted for my local MP and, yes, he is a member of the Conservative Party. At no point was I unaware of the opinions of Boris which is why I did not vote for him at all. To dare to think that all the mistakes the Conservative Party are making are because all Conservative Party members havne't got a sensible brain amongst them is in itself an unintelligent opinion. To imply that all Conservative Party members are empty-headed is an arrogance.
-
What "English" names?
Those that came from Normandy with William the Conqueror? Those that have come from Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Cornwall over the centuries? Those that came with Huguenot refugees? Those that came with Jews chased from their homes in continental Europe?
Are you suggesting that these names are more acceptable than those of immigrants from countries which we colonised and gave their inhabitants the status of British subjects?
I celebrate the presence of people with these names in Government. They are a sign of a multicultural society which - for the most part - is at ease with itself.
Read my post again and carefully this time, including the last line.
-
Has a reply of mine been removed? If so, why? I replied to HH's post, but it's disappeared. Maybe I neglected to hit "post".
-
That is really a very silly remark and in fact I think I'd call it bigoted. I think perhaps you owe those of us who are intelligent and thoughtful voters of the Conservative Party an apology.
I think Tory voters owe everyone an apology.
-
He's going - later today. Put the flags out!
-
Has a reply of mine been removed? If so, why? I replied to HH's post, but it's disappeared. Maybe I neglected to hit "post".
Moderator:
Nope - we've not removed anything, Steve.
-
How can the lying plook stay as PM with his cabinet - what's left of it - rebelling against him, half his government resigned, an economic crisis and a Europan war.....for THREE MONTHS?
What kind of farce of a government can he cobble together?
-
He's going - later today. Put the flags out!
Apparently he's going to resign but hang on until a replacement is found: the Tory party haven't even got the brains to get rid of this mendacious fuckwit immediately.
-
Good that he's going but you they're just going to replace him with another idiot toff!
-
Good that he's going but you they're just going to replace him with another idiot toff!
Utterly farcical at moment.
-
https://twitter.com/MrJonDePlume/status/1544771621566746627?t=Ty2y6-UiP_sd0Pzy0YUxhw&s=19
-
.
-
From a 'sympathetic' commentator. Though it should be tribune of the plebs. I don't think that gets Johnson though, more Nero than Clodius.
-
So let me get this straight.
Several dozen tory MP's resigned from nice little posts to stop the damage Johnson was doing to their party in it's tracks.
And now they are letting him stay as prime minister possibly until October.
-
Nope. The nature of Johnson was clear for years before he became PM. That analogy doesn't work.
That some voters refused to see those faults speaks volumes for either their own venality or alternatively, naivety.
It is, unfortunately exactly what they voted for.
A lot of Labour party members refused to see Jeremy Corbyn's faults even after he lost his first general election.
Demonising the people who disagree with you is not helpful.
-
Good that he's going but you they're just going to replace him with another idiot toff!
In the short term, I'll take that over a lying idiot toff.
-
No, it is not. I voted for my local MP and, yes, he is a member of the Conservative Party. At no point was I unaware of the opinions of Boris which is why I did not vote for him at all. To dare to think that all the mistakes the Conservative Party are making are because all Conservative Party members havne't got a sensible brain amongst them is in itself an unintelligent opinion. To imply that all Conservative Party members are empty-headed is an arrogance.
Dodging responsibility. You may have voted for your local MP but you were endorsing Johnson as PM. We've been on this merry go round before and I doubt we will agree, but the commentariat and lots of Tories have been at pains to tell me that the reason the Tories won the election was because of JOhnson's unique appeal to the electorate. You can't have it both ways. You at the very least endorsed Johnson by your vote for your local MP. It really is as simple as that. I endorsed Corbyn by voting for my local Labour MP. It is the way our system now works.
-
ffs ... hasn't anyone told him that leave means LEAVE!
Tories should get a grip and replace Johnson with a responsible interim caretaker, not let him stay in place to screw up the coming government.
Our unwritten constitution is really hopeless, formed over the years to keep power and wealth in the hands of those that already have power and wealth.
-
If the tory mps have any sense, they'll elect someone boring and monochrome as the next PM. Charismatic PMs are usually disastrous - witness Thatcher and Johnson Even Churchill was a bit of a disaster during his second, peace-time term. Attlee, otoh, was famously dull, but was arguably the best peace-time PM in the last hundred years, if not longer.
-
If the tory mps have any sense, they'll elect someone boring and monochrome as the next PM. Charismatic PMs are usually disastrous - witness Thatcher and Johnson Even Churchill was a bit of a disaster during his second, peace-time term. Attlee, otoh, was famously dull, but was arguably the best peace-time PM in the last hundred years, if not longer.
I think there are many who will see Thatcher overall as a huge success but that aside wasn't May supposed to be boring and monochrome, as to an extent Brown was, and Major certainly was so not sure it works.
Was having a discussion elsewhere that the last person to lead their party into govt from opposition, and stay in office till after they lost was Heath.
-
Now, he's the first rat refusing to flee a sinking ship.
The rat is still clinging to the sinking ship while the others are fighting over who wil be the next captain. It's the Mutiny on the Ratty.
-
...
-
...
????
-
I think there are many who will see Thatcher overall as a huge success but that aside wasn't May supposed to be boring and monochrome, as to an extent Brown was, and Major certainly was so not sure it works.
Was having a discussion elsewhere that the last person to lead their party into govt from opposition, and stay in office till after they lost was Heath.
Gordon Brown was the ultimate boring and monochrome leader. It amazed me that nobody in the Labour Party saw that before he succeeded Tony Blair.
-
The rat is still clinging to the sinking ship while the others are fighting over who wil be the next captain. It's the Mutiny on the Ratty.
Somebody characterised this whole thing as the first time the sinking ship left the rat.
-
So what has Boris done to merit his forced resignation?
He won a landslide majority for the Tory party
He got Brexit done.
Hundreds of lives were saved in the early days of the pandemic by early roll out of vaccines - unhindered by EU red tape regulations.
Many businesses were saved during the lockdown by the most generous furlough scheme in Europe.
Britain led the way in giving support to Ukraine to defend themselves from Russian attack.
He had a few drinks and a slice of cake with work colleagues during lock down.
He tried to cover up some of his errors which were blown up totally out of proportion by the media - which seemed to attach more importance to having cakes and drinks than dealing with a looming third word war.
I hope Nadine Dorries will be successful in her endeavours to carry on the good work.
-
He won a landslide majority for the Tory party Depends how you define it but 43.6% of the 67.3% of people who bothered to vote is not a landslide (that only happened because of the antiquated and frankly ridiculous nature of our voting system)
He got Brexit done. Lie
Hundreds of lives were saved in the early days of the pandemic by early roll out of vaccines - unhindered by EU red tape regulations. Lie
Many businesses were saved during the lockdown by the most generous furlough scheme in Europe.[/i][/b] Partially true
Britain led the way in giving support to Ukraine to defend themselves from Russian attack. Mostly true
He had a few drinks and a slice of cake with work colleagues during lock down. Lie - suitcases of booze
He tried to cover up some of his errors which were blown up totally out of proportion by the media - which seemed to attach more importance to having cakes and drinks than dealing with a looming third word war. He lied about things repeatedly, changes his story, let others take the blame
I'm just recalling something about bearing false witness.....
Some of my own:
180,000 dead from covid, some of those lives at the beginning would have been saved by an earlier lockdown - True
Lowest growth rate in the G7. True
Highest inflation in the g7 true
Lied to the Queen True
Lied to parliament True
Highest number of food banks ever True
Highest number of migrants crossing the channel True
I could go on but frankly I'm a little worried about the bandwidth.....
-
So what has Boris done to merit his forced resignation?
He broke his own laws with respect to COVID19 lockdowns and then lied about it to parliament. That by itself should have been enough. But like the mendacious arsehole he is, he clung on to power. He hasn't got an ounce of integrity.
He's also a serial adulterer. Remember that commandment that your religion touts?
He won a landslide majority for the Tory party
Partly because the opposition was weak.
He got Brexit done.
But he didn't did he. He screwed up the Northern Ireland protocol so badly that he was trying to weasel out of it.
Hundreds of lives were saved in the early days of the pandemic by early roll out of vaccines - unhindered by EU red tape regulations.
EU red tape would have had no effect on the vaccine roll out. The government did do quite well on that but EU countries have since overtaken us and we mustn't forget Boris's indecisiveness at the beginning of the pandemic when his failure to order a lock down killed a lot of people.
Many businesses were saved during the lockdown by the most generous furlough scheme in Europe.
That is true, although we are paying for it now.
Britain led the way in giving support to Ukraine to defend themselves from Russian attack.
I think of that as a "look a squirrel" moment. It was fortunate for Ukraine that Boris needed something to distract us from the mundane problem of having a lying shit running the country.
He had a few drinks and a slice of cake with work colleagues during lock down.
He tried to cover up some of his errors which were blown up totally out of proportion by the media - which seemed to attach more importance to having cakes and drinks than dealing with a looming third word war.
My friend had to inform his mother about the death of his father and her husband by shouting through the letterbox of her house. Don't give me that shit about it only being a few cakes and drinks.
There are several levels to this. First there was the actual offence, which was fairly minor. But then we are talking about an alleged professional organisation that seemed to be in permanent party mode while the country was burning down. Even if these people were behaving like teenagers, surely they could have seen that the optics looked really bad from a political perspective? It all bespeaks a badly run organisation with an unprofessional culture and politically clueless people. If the project I am on was run like that we'd all be fired. But this isn't a minor IT project for there NHS, it's the office of the prime minister.
Then, of course BJ lied about it all in parliament. That by itself would have been enough for a resignation. BJ has treated parliament and the country with contempt. He must go.
I hope Nadine Dorries will be successful in her endeavours to carry on the good work.
Do you know somerthing we don't.
-
Highest number of migrants crossing the channel True
I don't think you can claim BJ is responsible for that.
On the other hand, you can blame him for trying to introduce legislation that might have made it illegal for the RNLI to rescue them from drowning. And you can blame him for trying to send them to Rwanda.
-
I don't think you can claim BJ is responsible for that.
He did promise to get the numbers down though.
-
Forgot to mention this Alan:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/business-economics/uks-trade-performance-drops-to-worst-level-since-records-began-328084/?
-
????
It is somewhat ironic.. .the cabinet ministers Tory MPs changed their working conditions by withdrawing their labour.
(I've edited a little bit, but you get the gist.Just checked it, wasn't quite right before.
Edit- still a bit wrong, I cannot copy and paste it. >:( .)
One out, all out eh comrades?
Now the flying pickets get a jet.
-
So what has Boris done to merit his forced resignation?
He won a landslide majority for the Tory party
He got Brexit done.
I, along with many of my fellow Scots, regard these two 'achievements' as disasters.
I hope Nadine Dorries will be successful in her endeavours to carry on the good work.
Presumably you're having a laugh here: were there a league table of Tory fuckwits I'd imagine she'd be in the top three.
-
PS Johnson also seeded covid in care homes by unlawfully ordering the discharge of patients back to care homes from hospitals.
He has blood on his hands.
-
He's also a serial adulterer. Remember that commandment that your religion touts?
True and deplorable, but I don't think a politician's personal sexual morality should be relevant.
-
True and deplorable, but I don't think a politician's personal sexual morality should be relevant.
Yes, but I think it speaks to his general character and thus his suitability to be prime minister. It's not that he's committed adultery but that he does it again and again with no apparent thought to the consequences.
-
So what has Boris done to merit his forced resignation?
He won a landslide majority for the Tory party
He got Brexit done.
Hundreds of lives were saved in the early days of the pandemic by early roll out of vaccines - unhindered by EU red tape regulations.
Many businesses were saved during the lockdown by the most generous furlough scheme in Europe.
Britain led the way in giving support to Ukraine to defend themselves from Russian attack.
He had a few drinks and a slice of cake with work colleagues during lock down.
He tried to cover up some of his errors which were blown up totally out of proportion by the media - which seemed to attach more importance to having cakes and drinks than dealing with a looming third word war.
I hope Nadine Dorries will be successful in her endeavours to carry on the good work.
Well, my goodness me, there have been very few occasions when I have thought to myself, well said' after reading one of your posts!! However, on this occasion I listened to this one before cursoring back to see who the author was and was surprised! :)
And the points made about the news media finding that the cakes and drink vasty outweigh the good things is something that has annoyed me from the start of all the let's-pull-down-the-PM, because it's what they do to anyone with a high profile, regardless of the fact that there is no-one with the personality strong enoughneeded to replace him. All the lefty, Labour, Scottish Indepenndece etc supporters will, as you will have noticed from responses to my posts!, see things from a narrow perspective. Yes, he made a lot of mistakes, but you can be sure that as soon as another leader is chosen, those journalists will be probing through their past to find every little mistake they have ever made .
Ah well, the choice of two which will be for the choice for Party members to vote for will b interesting - I hope!
ETA: (Second try - must have pressed the wrong key and it disappeared) I have now read the intervening posts and as predictable as I suppose mine is! I forgot to say that the thought of Nadine Dorries getting anywhere near the top of the list of 11 candidates makes me shudder. That 11 are all, in my opinion, pale grey shadows of leaders. That Tugan-something is possible, I suppose, but I don't think I'll bother to look him up.
-
Well, my goodness me, there have been very few occasions when I have thought to myself, well said' after reading one of your posts!! However, on this occasion I listened to this one before cursoring back to see who the author was and was surprised! :)
And the points made about the news media finding that the cakes and drink vasty outweigh the good things is something that has annoyed me from the start of all the let's-pull-down-the-PM, because it's what they do to anyone with a high profile, regardless of the fact that there is no-one with the personality strong enoughneeded to replace him. All the lefty, Labour, Scottish Indepenndece etc supporters will, as you will have noticed from responses to my posts!, see things from a narrow perspective. Yes, he made a lot of mistakes, but you can be sure that as soon as another leader is chosen, those journalists will be probing through their past to find every little mistake they have ever made .
Ah well, the choice of two which will be for the choice for Party members to vote for will b interesting - I hope!
Any public figure, especially a politician, just has to deal with that. They know this beforehand. And indeed it is the job of the press to make things public if it is in the public interest. Why should BoJo be let off lightly? Johnson has been shown time and time again to be lacking in any moral fibre. He has taken the piss out of the electorate.
-
And the points made about the news media finding that the cakes and drink vasty outweigh the good things is something that has annoyed me from the start ...
Stop trivialising things - it is irrelevant whether it was cake, or guacamole, or curry. The point is that he broke the law, a law that he, himself had implemented and imposed on everyone. A law that he, and his colleagues, went on tv day after day telling us we all must obey or people would die. And by and large the population did as they were asked, and in doing so couldn't say goodbye to relatives as they died, missed out on seeing new born babies for months, lay scared and alone in care homes as relatives couldn't visit etc etc.
Now I'm not saying that the law was wrong, but it is jaw droppingly astonishing and beyond appalling that the very people who imposed the law on us were routinely breaking the law day after day by partying in number 10. And add to that that Johnson lied and lied and lied about this (there were no parties, all the rules were followed etc etc) - he lied to parliament, he lied to everyone of us. He needs to be kicked out of no10 right now as he is a disgrace to his office and the UK will continue to be an international laughing stock every day he remains PM.
-
Ah well, the choice of two which will be for the choice for Party members to vote for will b interesting - I hope!
I can't remember where we'd got to on the Susan Doris party status. Are you still a member? I know you were in 2019 as you told us you supported Hunt. If you are a member and will therefore have a vote I trust you will take the greatest care to find out about the candidates and cast your vote wisely. It is a weird (and deeply unsatisfactory) anomaly of our system of government that a PM can be chosen by less than 200,000 people from a population of 60 million. I actually think it is more democratic to have a new PM selected by their MPs only as at least those MPs can claim cumulative support of millions via a democratic process. Party members - not so much.
-
I can't remember where we'd got to on the Susan Doris party status. Are you still a member? I know you were in 2019 as you told us you supported Hunt. If you are a member and will therefore have a vote I trust you will take the greatest care to find out about the candidates and cast your vote wisely. It is a weird (and deeply unsatisfactory) anomaly of our system of government that a PM can be chosen by less than 200,000 people from a population of 60 million. I actually think it is more democratic to have a new PM selected by their MPs only as at least those MPs can claim cumulative support of millions via a democratic process. Party members - not so much.
If you think I would vote for one of them without checking everything I could about them, then I am sorry to hear it.
If Richie Sumak - I'm not going to bother to look up the spelling of his name because if he's on the list then the other one is better for a start - and I'll spoil the paper if the other one is not right as far as I'm concerned. I shal then write to my MP and tell him what I have done.
-
If you think I would vote for one of them without checking everthing I coud about them, then I am sorry to hear it.
If Richie Sumak - I'm not going to bother to look up the spelling of his name because if he's on the list then the other one is better for a start - and I'll spoil the paper if the other one is not right as far as I'm concerned. I shal then write to my MP and tell him what I have done.
So I assume this means you remain a member and therefore will have a vote.
Regarding checking people out - forgive me for implying that you might not do your homework but you own comments, such as:
"I'm not going to bother to look up the spelling of his name"
"That Tugan-something is possible, I suppose, but I don't think I'll bother to look him up."
Certainly implies a lack of interest in doing any homework, particularly seeing as you can't even be bothered to look up someone you suggest is possible. It is also rather disrespectful to appear to be deliberately misspelling people's names.
And what on earth would be the point in contacting your MP after the event. You seem to have a good relationship with him - surely you should be determining now who you would like to be elected, and therefore who needs to be in the final two, and be lobbying your MP to get him to support that person in the MPs ballot.
-
If Richie Sumak - I'm not going to bother to look up the spelling of his name because if he's on the list then the other one is better for a start
Can you please explain what you have against Rishi Sunak please - I'd have thought he'd be the nearest person to continuity Boris, given that he was chancellor in the Boris government.
Clearly you aren't enamoured by him, but can you explain why please.
-
I can't remember where we'd got to on the Susan Doris party status. Are you still a member? I know you were in 2019 as you told us you supported Hunt. If you are a member and will therefore have a vote I trust you will take the greatest care to find out about the candidates and cast your vote wisely. It is a weird (and deeply unsatisfactory) anomaly of our system of government that a PM can be chosen by less than 200,000 people from a population of 60 million. I actually think it is more democratic to have a new PM selected by their MPs only as at least those MPs can claim cumulative support of millions via a democratic process. Party members - not so much.
I'm reminded of the meeting of trade union leaders at TUC headquarters in the days of the block vote. Afterwards, they repaired to a pub, and the general secretary took people's orders by a show of hands, then said "right - that's five million bitters, three and a half million whiskys, four million ciders...".
-
And the points made about the news media finding that the cakes and drink vasty outweigh the good things is something that has annoyed me from the start of all the let's-pull-down-the-PM
Let's be clear. The issue is not that Boris went to a party. That would be a relatively minor thing.
The issue is that he lied about it in parliament. There's no way that lying to the elected representatives of the people of the UK is a small thing. It's always a big deal. He was the leader of this country but he proved himself to be completely untrustworthy.
-
Let's be clear. The issue is not that Boris went to a party. That would be a relatively minor thing.
The issue is that he lied about it in parliament. There's no way that lying to the elected representatives of the people of the UK is a small thing. It's always a big deal. He was the leader of this country but he proved himself to be completely untrustworthy.
That is one of the issues. The other is the rank hypocrisy - here was a PM standing at a lectern day after day at the press conferences telling the public that they must obey the rules and then headed off to knowingly break them himself. One rule for him, another rule for the little people.
-
Well, my goodness me, there have been very few occasions when I have thought to myself, well said' after reading one of your posts!! However, on this occasion I listened to this one before cursoring back to see who the author was and was surprised! :)
And the points made about the news media finding that the cakes and drink vasty outweigh the good things is something that has annoyed me from the start of all the let's-pull-down-the-PM, because it's what they do to anyone with a high profile, regardless of the fact that there is no-one with the personality strong enoughneeded to replace him. All the lefty, Labour, Scottish Indepenndece etc supporters will, as you will have noticed from responses to my posts!, see things from a narrow perspective. Yes, he made a lot of mistakes, but you can be sure that as soon as another leader is chosen, those journalists will be probing through their past to find every little mistake they have ever made .
Ah well, the choice of two which will be for the choice for Party members to vote for will b interesting - I hope!
ETA: (Second try - must have pressed the wrong key and it disappeared) I have now read the intervening posts and as predictable as I suppose mine is! I forgot to say that the thought of Nadine Dorries getting anywhere near the top of the list of 11 candidates makes me shudder. That 11 are all, in my opinion, pale grey shadows of leaders. That Tugan-something is possible, I suppose, but I don't think I'll bother to look him up.
Susan
You seem to be saying you hold Johnson to less rigorous standards because you like his personality. I have never fathomed his particular charm but each to their own - you are of course entitled to like whoever you like. I can see how the lack of detail in his speeches - often because he has not bothered to do his homework or read the in-depth cabinet papers or briefs - allows you to project all kinds of imagined competencies on him. It's somewhat like religious people in relation to their particular version of an unseen, immaterial god - you project attributes to Johnson based on blind faith that you wish were true rather than based on any facts or evidence.
Johnson can be an entertaining debater but a Cabinet Minister or PM needs to have a bit more substance than a flair for debating. And his debating skills towards the end seemed to diminish to just telling lies and trying to bluster his way out when his lies were exposed and when that didn't work apologising over and over again for each cock-up or lack of accurate recollection or misleading statement.
Your responses on this thread have lacked even less detail or facts to support your opinions than Boris Johnson's own speeches. Even if we just look at your point about cakes and drinks - surely it's worrying if a country's leader does not have at least the minimum levels of competence required to think a few steps ahead e.g. to how it would look if he was seen to be indulging in brithday and garden parties when voters could not hold the hand of dying loved ones or comfort grieving relatives because of the rules he and his government imposed on their electorate? Even the recently bereaved Queen had the presence of mind and was competent enough at her job to figure out that the optics of grieving alone for her husband was a better look than asking for special treatment, just because she is the Head of State.
Even a 12 year old would be able to predict that leaks of emails, photos, videos, CCTV, memos etc happen with depressing regularity and that the press would publish the story and add their spin on it. My view is that someone who is too incompetent to appreciate the likelihood of the information being leaked or the political fall-out from the leak and how it would affect his political standing is not someone who inspires any kind of confidence in their ability as a strategist or leader. Whatever good he was doing in relation to Ukraine through his public support - and here his charismatic persona probably was as helpful as any weapons he sent to Ukraine - he is clearly not someone who can be relied on not to trip over his own feet and balls it up in the not too distant future.
As for his strong personality, the only thing I can think of is that Johnson badly over-estimated the ability of his personal charm or charisma to get him out of scrapes caused by his lack of due diligence, attention to detail and professional competence. It appears that he thought that running the country and uniting as a leader sufficient number of the electorate and his MPs could be achieved by personality alone, as though it was some kind of reality tv show of photo-opps to be churned out for the entertainment of the masses rather than something that involved serious, committed, organised work. His personality seemed to consist of his mouth moving and saying the right words about getting serious work done but his actual actions meant he and his Ministers had to keep pausing to waste precious time apologising time and time again for Johnson's weaknesses and failings rather than dealing with the important issues a competent leader should be dealing with. I can understand why his MPs had enough of the farce this had become as his "strong personality" was insufficient for people to overlook his numerous other serious failings.
I suggest Johnson just moves on to the next stage, for which he does actually have the requisite competencies, and where his repeated gaffes and lack of judgement will actually help rather than hinder him by generating publicity. He should just get a publishing deal for him to churn out some entertaining books about his experiences and make entertaining TV programs or go on chat-shows or do after-dinner speeches. I'm sure there is a market for that amongst the public. He will probably make more than enough money to support his careless habit of collecting ex-wives and offspring by various girlfriends and also buy some property for him to move into.
-
I have read all yesterday's posts and thought I would make an effort to respond, so I copied and pasted contents on to a blank doc. However, I just have not had the energy today. Yesterday, I spent seven hours at Bournemouth Hospital waiting before and being check before being allowed home after lumpectomy under a local anaesthetic. Absolutely no problems with that and everyone was lovely, but today ..... no energy.
And I have been thinking: No, I am not going to explain all the details of why and why not I will do this or that rgarding the candidates. In the end, I shall have a choice of two and then, yes, I will do a lot more checking of those two.
Interestingly enough, the Surgeon and I were having a conversation about the candidates during the operation!!
-
I have read all yesterday's posts and thought I would make an effort to respond, so I copied and pasted contents on to a blank doc. However, I just have not had the energy today. Yesterday, I spent seven hours at Bournemouth Hospital waiting before and being check before being allowed home after lumpectomy under a local anaesthetic. Absolutely no problems with that and everyone was lovely, but today ..... no energy.
And I have been thinking: No, I am not going to explain all the details of why and why not I will do this or that rgarding the candidates. In the end, I shall have a choice of two and then, yes, I will do a lot more checking of those two.
Interestingly enough, the Surgeon and I were having a conversation about the candidates during the operation!!
The most important thing, Susan, is that you look after yourself and recover your energy - slowly and as directed by the quacks.
-
I have read all yesterday's posts and thought I would make an effort to respond, so I copied and pasted contents on to a blank doc. However, I just have not had the energy today. Yesterday, I spent seven hours at Bournemouth Hospital waiting before and being check before being allowed home after lumpectomy under a local anaesthetic. Absolutely no problems with that and everyone was lovely, but today ..... no energy. And I have been thinking: No, I am not going to explain all the details of why and why not I will do this or that rgarding the candidates. In the end, I shall have a choice of two and then, yes, I will do a lot more checking of those two. Interestingly enough, the Surgeon and I were having a conversation about the candidates during the operation!!
Hope things are OK, Susan. Take it easy.
-
Well, my goodness me, there have been very few occasions when I have thought to myself, well said' after reading one of your posts!! However, on this occasion I listened to this one before cursoring back to see who the author was and was surprised! :)
And the points made about the news media finding that the cakes and drink vasty outweigh the good things is something that has annoyed me from the start of all the let's-pull-down-the-PM, because it's what they do to anyone with a high profile, regardless of the fact that there is no-one with the personality strong enoughneeded to replace him. All the lefty, Labour, Scottish Indepenndece etc supporters will, as you will have noticed from responses to my posts!, see things from a narrow perspective. Yes, he made a lot of mistakes, but you can be sure that as soon as another leader is chosen, those journalists will be probing through their past to find every little mistake they have ever made .
Glad to see that there is something we can agree on Susan :)
In this we appear to be in a tiny minority on this forum, but I know of many other people who are appalled at the way our democratically elected leader has been ousted from office over faults which are trivial in comparison those of other prominent leaders who continue to remain in office unchallenged.
-
... our democratically elected leader has been ousted from office over faults which are trivial in comparison those of other prominent leaders ...
In what way are the following trivial:
1. Breaking the law (the first sitting PM ever to have been found to have done so).
2. Standing up at regular press conferences and telling the public that they have to obey laws that he, himself was breaking.
3. Lying to Parliament and to the British public, over (but not limited to) the parties in number 10, claiming they never happened, that no rules were broken etc etc.
Any one of those should be an automatic resigning offence.
And your claim of 'democratically elected leader' shows you really do not understands our parliamentary democratic system. Our PM is not a president, he or she does not receive a personal electoral mandate. He or she is the selected leader of the party (or combination of parties) that commands a majority of MPs. And if those MPs lose confidence in that PM he or she has to go - that's our system. Although I suspect I and others would be more than happy for there to be a general election right now (which seems to be the implication of your 'democratically elected leader' claim, but that cannot happen in our system unless the sitting PM calls for one or MPs vote in favour of a VONC in the Government.
-
our democratically elected leader
The only people who have had any connection with "democracy" in establishing Alexander Johnson as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury have been members of the elctorate in the constituency of Uxbridge.
By convention, the monarch appoints the leader of the political party with the largest number of seats in the House of Commons. It is quite possible that this will involve fewer than half of the total number of elected MPs, many of whom themselves have been elected by tribal loyalty rather than any real political philosophy
-
Glad to see that there is something we can agree on Susan :)
In this we appear to be in a tiny minority on this forum, but I know of many other people who are appalled at the way our democratically elected leader has been ousted from office over faults which are trivial in comparison those of other prominent leaders who continue to remain in office unchallenged.
Alan
He is a lying, narcissistic Tory fuckwit - we are well rid: now we need to get rid of his party from government and, hopefully, Scotland will in due course be free from being subjected to another Tory government that we Scots have largely rejected.
Johnson, in particular, is a cancer on UK politics.
-
Alan
He is a lying, narcissistic Tory fuckwit - we are well rid: now we need to get rid of his party from government and, hopefully, Scotland will in due course be free from being subjected to another Tory government that we Scots have largely rejected.
Johnson, in particular, is a cancer on UK politics.
We may well be rid of Johnson as PM (or will be soon) but the challenge is his legacy, the lowering of the bar for how we expect our leaders to act. Johnson's conduct in office has been so far below that of any other PM I can remember that perhaps two scenarios will play out.
1. We will revert to type, whereby there is an unwritten but expected level of conduct of a PM, and future PMs will revert to that norm with recognition that Johnson was an appalling stain on our constitutional expectations, but an exception.
2. That Johnson-like conduct becomes baked in - doesn't matter if you break the law, Johnson did and didn't resign, doesn't matter if you lie to parliament, Johnson did and wasn't forced to resign (noting that neither of these things was the direct cause of his downfall).
Let's hope the future is the former rather than the latter. And for those Johnson lovers (SD/AB, take a bow) remember that if you accept this kind of conduce from someone you like you cannot criticise if there is a Corbyn-like PM in the future breaking the law and lying to parliament but refusing to resign because of the precedent set by Johnson. So when defending Johnson, be very, very careful what you wish for.
-
Glad to see that there is something we can agree on Susan :)
In this we appear to be in a tiny minority on this forum, but I know of many other people who are appalled at the way our democratically elected leader has been ousted from office over faults which are trivial in comparison those of other prominent leaders who continue to remain in office unchallenged.
He's a democratically-elected MP, but we don't directly elect the PM as such; he or she is simply the leader of the governing party, and how they become leader is a matter for the party concerned. If the leader breaks the law and then lies about it, it seems appropriate to me that they should resign.
What are the faults of other leaders who remain in office, and which other leaders?
-
If the leader breaks the law and then lies about it, it seems appropriate to me that they should resign.
Absolutely - and even democracy cannot sit above the law (for obvious reasons) - so even if someone is democratically elected that doesn't mean they aren't subject to the law and shouldn't mean that they can break the law with impunity and expect not to be removed from office.
-
Known liar lied to Parliament.
https://youtu.be/3ZiUb6gPDxs
-
Known liar lied to Parliament.
https://youtu.be/3ZiUb6gPDxs
Not as if we weren't warned.
And on the laziness, lack of grip, poor attention to detail because he couldn't be bothered to read briefing papers, well that was all well known too. Just ask around in the GLA about his time as Mayor.
So there have been people all along saying that he is a lazy, dishonest, incompetent, entitled, idiot (proved to be the case) - yet the repost came back that this was all a super-clever front and behind that deshevelled persona was a super-intelligent inspirational visionary. How wrong those people were - the worst PM in living memory (well perhaps that accolade goes to his old school chum)was hiding in plain sight.
-
Not as if we weren't warned.
And on the laziness, lack of grip, poor attention to detail because he couldn't be bothered to read briefing papers, well that was all well known too. Just ask around in the GLA about his time as Mayor.
So there have been people all along saying that he is a lazy, dishonest, incompetent, entitled, idiot (proved to be the case) - yet the repost came back that this was all a super-clever front and behind that deshevelled persona was a super-intelligent inspirational visionary. How wrong those people were - the worst PM in living memory (well perhaps that accolade goes to his old school chum)was hiding in plain sight.
And yet despite this wealth of evidence some people are willing to defend him vehemently.
I know that many of us (I include myself) are loyal to, and likely to take the side of, the political party we support. Still, this near deification of Johnson in some quarters is unfathomable and flies in the face of so much that we know of the man and his deficiencies.
-
And yet despite this wealth of evidence some people are willing to defend him vehemently.
I know that many of us (I include myself) are loyal too, and likely to take the side of, the political party we support. Still, this near deification of Johnson in some quarters is unfathomable and flies in the face of so much that we know of the man and his deficiencies.
I guess some people aren't prepared to admit they were wrong.
And I think this is a big issue for Hunt - of the candidates available, he is surely the best combination of experience but not being tarred by being at the scene of the Johnson car-wreck. Yet he seems to be gaining no traction, and one argument I've heard is that MPs and members cannot face supporting Hunt as it would be an admission that they got it wrong last time, preferring Johnson over Hunt in the final contest.
I find SD's attitude bewildering however - she claims to have no interest, yet is a Tory member and ex-activist. Continually defends Johnson, albeit is a rather irritating round-the-houses kind of manner (no-one better, well my MP thinks he's OK etc). Yet she is clear that she voted for Hunt rather than Johnson last time - easy out "not my fault, don't blame me for the lying lier, I did what I could to get the other guy voted in as PM" - yet she doesn't do this.
-
When presented with a clown most people relax in the expectation of some amusement, overlooking any number of flaws - real or feigned. Only a few react with horror and fear, seeing something malicious behind the disguise.
BJ is a clown of the evil type. It is not his personal flaws or corruption and incompetency that are the problem but that he has also helped unfetter a pack of corrupt individuals who care for nothing except their own personal gain or the cost to the country and rest of the world.
-
When presented with a clown most people relax in the expectation of some amusement, overlooking any number of flaws - real or feigned. Only a few react with horror and fear, seeing something malicious behind the disguise.
BJ is a clown of the evil type. It is not his personal flaws or corruption and incompetency that are the problem but that he has also helped unfetter a pack of corrupt individuals who care for nothing except their own personal gain or the cost to the country and rest of the world.
I think this is a clear manifestation of the entitled elite (see both Cameron and Johnson). If when you look at the photos on the school wall, your parents and their relatives and friends and you see people who held the very top jobs, earned the most money, dined with all of the other elites, met PMs and Presidents around the world, then your whole world view and aspirational drive becomes distorted. If you want to do better than your parent and your chums (and if you are ambitious let's face it many do) then it isn't enough to get to university (as may be the case for someone first generation to go to university), it isn't enough to become a doctor or a teacher. Nope you've got to outdo the chum who became Foreign Secretary, or the Uncle who is uber-uber rich. So in order to meet aspirations you have to go one better, get a position higher than Foreign Secretary, be even richer.
And this is the real challenge at the top. For most of us, we kind of aspire to ensure that our children do a little better than we did, and for this to carry on over several generations - that is certainly the world of my family, and probably of the vast majority of people in the UK. But if you are already at the very top, all you can aspire to is that your kids don't do less well, and that creates a defensiveness and a need to close ranks with the rest of the establishment elite as it is in the interests of you all to use your power and infuence to keep yourselves at the top, and to keep your kids at the top.
-
Yes, I agree about the elites, but they form everywhere, including in countries that become independent after socialist campaigns or rebellions.
The problems to be tackled are really hard and it is hard to get the "right" people in the "right" places to sort them out. Leaders give up and are seduced or corrupted into lives of luxury and decadence then fix the systems to allow their friends and families to continue in the same way.
-
Private Eye
-
Glad to see that there is something we can agree on Susan :)
In this we appear to be in a tiny minority on this forum, but I know of many other people who are appalled at the way our democratically elected leader has been ousted from office over faults which are trivial in comparison those of other prominent leaders who continue to remain in office unchallenged.
And that last sentence seems to be the elephant in the room that anti-Government, anti-Johnsonists seem to be ignoring. Of course BJ made many errors, and yes, things were difficult for some who were missing important family events etc, but the focus should be on dealing with the huge problems in the terrible conflict in Ukraine, the terrible, complete lack of freedom for the people of Afghanistan, etc and I include the totally wrong decision to deny abortions in USA, especiallly as women will go to any lengths to have one and irreparable damage will be done to some women Then there is the huge problem of people trafficking, internet scams and frauds. . And I cannot accept that the fact that Boris had a drink and a piece of cake and yes of course he should not have done so, but to set that as more important than international politics and actions ... ... well, I think that is - here I pause to think of the right word - insular, perhaps selfish?
Suppose that Rishi Sumak (or whatever the spelling is) becomes leader. Well, it won't be from a vote from me for a start, then hands up anyone who thinks there is a completely clean record of his family and fortune from his birth until now. I understand he has alredy lost of mislaid a billion or two of the country's money ...
-
And that last sentence seems to be the elephant in the room that anti-Government, anti-Johnsonists seem to be ignoring. Of course BJ made many errors, and yes, things were difficult for some who were missing important family events etc, but the focus should be on dealing with the huge problems in the terrible conflict in Ukraine, the terrible, complete lack of freedom for the people of Afghanistan, etc and I include the totally wrong decision to deny abortions in USA, especiallly as women will go to any lengths to have one and irreparable damage will be done to some women Then there is the huge problem of people trafficking, internet scams and frauds. .
But SD - that is one of the most compelling reasons why Johnson had to go (beyond the law-breaking and lying). All of the personal crises facing Johnson meant that he has been completely unable to focus on the kay matters at hand. Either he has no bandwidth to focus on these key issues, due to having to spend huge time and energy dealing with the internal sh*t-show of his own making. Or he ends up making poor decisions, aimed at shoring up his premiership rather than taking difficult, but potentially unpopular, decisions in the interests of the country and the wider world.
When all your energies are focussed on simply remaining as PM you cannot be an effective PM.
Hence your point about dealing with the key issue is exactly a reason why he had to go, as his personal circumstances made him completely unable to deal with them.
-
And I cannot accept that the fact that Boris had a drink and a piece of cake and yes of course he should not have done so, but to set that as more important than international politics and actions ...
Oh give it a rest SD - this isn't about a drink and a piece of cake. It is about:
1. That the PM broke the law (the only PM ever to have done so), and indeed a law he himself had imposed on us. You cannot be a law maker and a law breaker.
2. That the PM was a hypocrite beyond compare - day after day he stood at a lectern and told us all we had to obey the law 'to save lives', yet he broke them with impunity and presided over an office that seemed to think the law simply didn't apply to then, so many parties were going on. Number 10 is the most law breaking place in the whole country.
3. The PM lied - lied to parliament, he lied to us. He told us their were no parties (a lie), he told us all the rules were followed (a lie), he told us that he wasn't at parties (a lie) etc etc.
So stop talking about cake, we are talking about breaking the law, rank hypocrisy and lying - any one, let alone all three should have had him resigning in a flash if he had one iota of integrity, which of course he doesn't.
-
And that last sentence seems to be the elephant in the room that anti-Government, anti-Johnsonists seem to be ignoring. Of course BJ made many errors, and yes, things were difficult for some who were missing important family events etc, but the focus should be on dealing with the huge problems in the terrible conflict in Ukraine, the terrible, complete lack of freedom for the people of Afghanistan, etc and I include the totally wrong decision to deny abortions in USA, especiallly as women will go to any lengths to have one and irreparable damage will be done to some women Then there is the huge problem of people trafficking, internet scams and frauds.
What you say here, Susan, reads like an example of whataboutery.
And I cannot accept that the fact that Boris had a drink and a piece of cake and yes of course he should not have done so, but to set that as more important than international politics and actions ... ... well, I think that is - here I pause to think of the right word - insular, perhaps selfish?
Johnson is a known liar, with narcissistic tendencies and a sense of entitlement: the bizarre thing is that the Tories voted him as their party leader in the first place given his known deficiencies, He enabled the shambles of Brexit using an approach that he knew would always produce problems in Northern Ireland in order to appease the lunatic fringe in his own party - he even appointed Nadine Dorries as Culture Minister for crying out loud!
Suppose that Rishi Sumak (or whatever the spelling is) becomes leader. Well, it won't be from a vote from me for a start, then hands up anyone who thinks there is a completely clean record of his family and fortune from his birth until now. I understand he has alredy lost of mislaid a billion or two of the country's money ...
I'd say that none of those vying to replace Johnson are attractive prospects: what we really need is for this shambolic Tory government to fall and for those sections of the electorate in England (the so called 'red wall' areas) who supported the Tories at the last GE to turn against them at the next.
-
And that last sentence seems to be the elephant in the room that anti-Government, anti-Johnsonists seem to be ignoring. Of course BJ made many errors, and yes, things were difficult for some who were missing important family events etc, but the focus should be on dealing with the huge problems in the terrible conflict in Ukraine, the terrible, complete lack of freedom for the people of Afghanistan, etc and I include the totally wrong decision to deny abortions in USA, especiallly as women will go to any lengths to have one and irreparable damage will be done to some women Then there is the huge problem of people trafficking, internet scams and frauds. . And I cannot accept that the fact that Boris had a drink and a piece of cake and yes of course he should not have done so, but to set that as more important than international politics and actions ... ... well, I think that is - here I pause to think of the right word - insular, perhaps selfish?
Suppose that Rishi Sumak (or whatever the spelling is) becomes leader. Well, it won't be from a vote from me for a start, then hands up anyone who thinks there is a completely clean record of his family and fortune from his birth until now. I understand he has alredy lost of mislaid a billion or two of the country's money ...
Susan
Sorry to hear about your current health issues. I hope you are resting and feeling a bit better.
Regarding tackling the issues you mentioned, maybe it is due to your health that you have not offered any evidence or actual facts to show Johnson has anything better to offer compared to Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss? You talked about his strong leadership but can't offer any evidence to support this claim. If he was such a strong leader and made good leadership decisions, so many MPs from his own party would not have lost confidence in him as a competent leader. As an absolute basic minimum, good leaders are supposed to inspire confidence rather than waste Parliament and Cabinet time having to answer criticisms for repeatedly making mistakes or misleading colleagues/ Parliament/ voters.
You are coming across as a bit scatty for arguing that Johnson is being replaced as leader because he had a drink and a slice of cake. The issue is not Johnson's choice of menu. The issue is that either the science behind the rules issued by the Government for the country can be trusted or it can't. Either it was ok to have mass-gatherings for frivolous reasons during Covid lock-down, without placing the NHS resources at risk, or it wasn't. Either it is ok to put the lives of doctors and nurses treating Covid patients at risk by having mass gatherings for frivolous reasons during a pandemic or it wasn't. And let's face it birthday parties and garden parties are frivolous and it makes Johnson appear idiotic, scatty and callous that he was not only unable to forgo them but that he and his advisers were too witless to predict that evidence of boozy parties leaked to the media would undermine his credibility as PM. Especially as MPs' constituents were at the same time being prevented by the government's rules from gathering to comfort dying loved ones and grieving relatives. While I appreciate that it is difficult for Johnson and his family and friends that he is unable to have another go in his personal playground of Downing Street, I'm confident they will cope and find new pastures to play in. And if people want frivolous big personalities with messy love lives to keep them entertained, I suggest you tune into Love Island or similar.
Your only argument in support of Johnson seems to be your own personal willingness to overlook Johnson's failings in leadership, integrity and competence for the job of PM. You seem to be ok with Johnson's lack of attention to detail and not being sufficiently prepared on policy briefs. You seem to be saying that his tendency to mislead to avoid being held accountable for disregarding rules is a price you are willing to pay to enjoy his style of leadership. Others are not so willing to drop their standards of what they require from a PM and seem to want something more substantial than a big personality. Johnson seems better suited to a less-demanding job - chat-show guest, TV presenter, after-dinner speaker, writer etc.
What point are you trying to make about Sunak's family's fortunes? Are you suggesting that if Conservative Party MPs or members suspect that Sunak's parents, wife or in-laws have engaged in legal tax-planning, they should not vote for Sunak as PM? Does that apply equally to Johnson's family? Why not compare the 2 individuals - Sunak and Johnson, rather than looking at their families? Both individuals broke the law and received fixed penalty notices for being at a party during Covid lock-down.
Akshata Murty's non-dom status is not a major issue for me - she is an individual in her own right rather than Rishi Sunak's appendage and therefore took advantage of legal tax rules that are in her best interests. She lived in California, met Sunak at Stanford university, and she and Sunak moved to the UK around 2013 but there is no guarantee that she would stay married to Sunak or that she would not return to live in India in the future as she is an Indian citizen and her parents live in India. Anyway, Murty is going to pay UK tax on her world-wide income to support Sunak's career aspirations now the political implications of the issue has been flagged. Even if legal, his political credibility is compromised by shaping fiscal policy while taking advantage of personal tax breaks for himself or his wife.
-
Oh give it a rest SD - this isn't about a drink and a piece of cake. It is about:
1. That the PM broke the law (the only PM ever to have done so), and indeed a law he himself had imposed on us. You cannot be a law maker and a law breaker.
Has no other PM ever had a parking fine or speeding ticket?
In terms of penalties these are about equivalent to the crime Boris was found guilty of.
-
Has no other PM ever had a parking fine or speeding ticket?
In terms of penalties these are about equivalent to the crime Boris was found guilty of.
Not while they were PM, and then lied about it to parliament, I shouldn't think.
-
Has no other PM ever had a parking fine or speeding ticket?
In terms of penalties these are about equivalent to the crime Boris was found guilty of.
No sitting PM prior to Boris has broken the law.
And no, breaking the law through lock-down partying isn't the equivalent of a speeding fine because:
1. Johnson brought in the very law that severely (but not unreasonably) curtailed our freedoms - he broke his own law, not something brought in by some previous PM that a current PM might, or might not support.
2. Johnson stood up day after day on tv and told us we must obey the law while at the same time breaking it himself and allowing his office and staff to routinely party.
3. Johnson lied to both the public and parliament time and again claiming there were no parties, that all the rules were followed etc etc.
So if you want an equivalent here is one: Imagine PM who passes a law reducing the speed limit to 15mph due to some national emergency, goes on tv every day to tell us we must not drive faster than 15mph or 'people will die' and then is found to have been driving at 50mph himself and allowing his staff to drive as fast as they like. And when challenged lying, claiming he and his staf never drove faster than 15mph.
He is a disgrace to the office and it is shameful that he remains PM - he should have been kicked out immediately. He has trashed Britain's reputation and sadly reputations take a long time to develop but can be destroyed very quickly.
-
Has no other PM ever had a parking fine or speeding ticket?
In terms of penalties these are about equivalent to the crime Boris was found guilty of.
Partygate, the lies and hypocrisy, turned the public mood against him, but even with the penalty notice was not enough to force him out of office despite full efforts by the opposition.
What did for him was that the people he was supposed to be leading could no longer believe and rely on the complete nonsense he spouted daily - which they were expected to support.
-
Partygate, the lies and hypocrisy, turned the public mood against him, but even with the penalty notice was not enough to force him out of office despite full efforts by the opposition.
What did for him was that the people he was supposed to be leading could no longer believe and rely on the complete nonsense he spouted daily - which they were expected to support.
No. What did for him was opinion polls and by-election results that show he was leading the Conservative Party to a catastrophic defeat in the next general election.
-
No. What did for him was opinion polls and by-election results that show he was leading the Conservative Party to a catastrophic defeat in the next general election.
Which were, for the large part, driven by party-gate and the whole trust/lies thing. I think what finally did for him were the lies over Pincher and sending out his ministers to tell the same lies to the media. That showed he wasn't able to learn from past mistakes that lying was permanently baked-in.
-
As always, a most interesting post, Gabriella, and today I have the time and energy to respond properly.
Susan
Sorry to hear about your current health issues. I hope you are resting and feeling a bit better.
Regarding tackling the issues you mentioned, maybe it is due to your health that you have not offered any evidence or actual facts to show Johnson has anything better to offer compared to Rishi Sunak or Liz Truss?
I did not vote for him as leader anyway, but at this point, I have to agree that he has run out of whatever the indefinable something in his personality/character/charisma was that made him the favourite, and got him into the position he has held.
It is now too late and things have gone too far for him to be reinstated.You talked about his strong leadership but can't offer any evidence to support this claim. If he was such a strong leader and made good leadership decisions, so many MPs from his own party would not have lost confidence in him as a competent leader.
In a way, he didn’t need to do much convincing of the voters because the opposition was so poor – still is – that even usual Labour (and Lib Dem) supporters voted Conservative. There was a landslide victory, That “X quallity” worked for him then, and It has continued to work until He made the one mistake too many.
Looking at the situation as I do from the point of view of whichever Governmnent is in power is not, luckily for me, going to affect my life, that is, a detached, one-step-removed position.
I think it is a position from which I can see the long-term, the more the way such a navel-focusing, ‘he-lied-therefore-he-must-go attitude is going off on a diversion instead of focusing on the much larger issues. It doesn’t matter whether I am correct there or not, the triumphalist, “we’ve done it, we’ve ghot rid of him” chorus forgets the lack of a stronger leader. Now that the di is cast, we are going to have a new leader, so we’ll see how that plays out. As an absolute basic minimum, good leaders are supposed to inspire confidence rather than waste Parliament and Cabinet time having to answer criticisms for repeatedly making mistakes or misleading colleagues/ Parliament/ voters.
Yes, of course, but that’s a fantasy world, a totally unrealistic approach, an impossible dream. They, like every other human being, from the most wonderful to the most wicked, makes mistakes. You are coming across as a bit scatty for arguing that Johnson is being replaced as leader because he had a drink and a slice of cake.
:] One thing nobody would call me is ‘scatty’! anyone who thinks my mind is so muddled that I cannot see the situation clearly, you’ll have to think again!The issue is not Johnson's choice of menu. The issue is that either the science behind the rules issued by the Government for the country can be trusted or it can't.
And that’s where I sigh deeply and although the clamour for his removal has succeeded, and all those who focused on that and then on the massive exaggeration of thinking that his removal was vastly more important than any other worldwide event is, in mny opinion, missing the elephant in the room. However, riding high on their high horses and feeling so satisfied with themselves, well, that’s the way human beings are. Either it was ok to have mass-gatherings for frivolous reasons during Covid lock-down, without placing the NHS resources at risk, or it wasn't. Either it is ok to put the lives of doctors and nurses treating Covid patients at risk by having mass gatherings for frivolous reasons during a pandemic or it wasn't. And let's face it birthday parties and garden parties are frivolous and it makes Johnson appear idiotic, scatty and callous that he was not only unable to forgo them but that he and his advisers were too witless to predict that evidence of boozy parties leaked to the media would undermine his credibility as PM. Especially as MPs' constituents were at the same time being prevented by the government's rules from gathering to comfort dying loved ones and grieving relatives.
And that is what I think could be called some sort of emotional over-kill which was exaggerated by every journalist around and if you think that means that I do not sympathise with every person who helped prevent wider spread of Covid by following the rules, then think again. Boris was a fool … .While I appreciate that it is difficult for Johnson and his family and friends that he is unable to have another go in his personal playground of Downing Street, I'm confident they will cope and find new pastures to play in. And if people want frivolous big personalities with messy love lives to keep them entertained, I suggest you tune into Love Island or similar.
Your only argument in support of Johnson seems to be your own personal willingness to overlook Johnson's failings in leadership, integrity and competence for the job of PM.
But I do not have, nor have I at any time made an argument in support of Boris. I do think that all the clamour has been exaggerated and that that exaggeration has been far too blinkered against far more important events. It has, however, succeeded in its aim of Boris’s resignation.You seem to be ok with Johnson's lack of attention to detail and not being sufficiently prepared on policy briefs. You seem to be saying that his tendency to mislead to avoid being held accountable for disregarding rules is a price you are willing to pay to enjoy his style of leadership.
On the contrary, I think it would have been better if he had not gained the position of PM in the first place, but since he did obtain that position, then perhaps this was a case where the maintenance of some stability was assuredly more important than the insular, navel-gazing events that have had the current result.Others are not so willing to drop their standards of what they require from a PM and seem to want something more substantial than a big personality. Johnson seems better suited to a less-demanding job - chat-show guest, TV presenter, after-dinner speaker, writer etc.
Please remember that I have never voted for him and those who infer my support of him just because I voted for a Conservative MP I therefore supported Boris are quite wrong.What point are you trying to make about Sunak's family's fortunes? Are you suggesting that if Conservative Party MPs or members suspect that Sunak's parents, wife or in-laws have engaged in legal tax-planning, they should not vote for Sunak as PM? Does that apply equally to Johnson's family? Why not compare the 2 individuals - Sunak and Johnson, rather than looking at their families? Both individuals broke the law and received fixed penalty notices for being at a party during Covid lock-down.
Akshata Murty's non-dom status is not a major issue for me - she is an individual in her own right rather than Rishi Sunak's appendage and therefore took advantage of legal tax rules that are in her best interests. She lived in California, met Sunak at Stanford university, and she and Sunak moved to the UK around 2013 but there is no guarantee that she would stay married to Sunak or that she would not return to live in India in the future as she is an Indian citizen and her parents live in India. Anyway, Murty is going to pay UK tax on her world-wide income to support Sunak's career aspirations now the political implications of the issue has been flagged. Even if legal, his political credibility is compromised by shaping fiscal policy while taking advantage of personal tax breaks for himself or his wife.
I think my antipathy towards him being PM is that he has, as far as I know, never experienced a life other than that of a very wealthy home. Yes, Borris is wealthy too, but he wasn’t the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would prefer it to be someone who has had, like quite a few older MPs,of different kinds of life. One of my self-appointed tasks during the next few days is to look up more about Penny Morgan.
And for anyone who’s read this far, I shall now go back to the beginming to correct spellings and grammatical errors, but do not guarantee I shall succeed in correcting every one!!!
-
Has no other PM ever had a parking fine or speeding ticket?
In terms of penalties these are about equivalent to the crime Boris was found guilty of.
Is that all you remember about Boris' misdemeanours? What about Jennifer Arcuri* and the IT lessons, not to mention the Owen Patterson affair before the Pincher affair, dodgy dealings with Dominic Cummings , illegal proroguing of parliament, all before Partygate (which in itself suggests that Johnson needed an eye test if he didn't know about the crates of booze etc, let alone Cummings needing one).
Thou SHALT bear false witness is okay now, is it?
*She still has tales to tell, though I suspect they won't be about her receiving illegal backhanders.
-
No. What did for him was opinion polls and by-election results that show he was leading the Conservative Party to a catastrophic defeat in the next general election.
All those things, which in part resulted from the behaviour which the Prof cited.
-
Partygate, the lies and hypocrisy, turned the public mood against him, but even with the penalty notice was not enough to force him out of office despite full efforts by the opposition.
What did for him was that the people he was supposed to be leading could no longer believe and rely on the complete nonsense he spouted daily - which they were expected to support.
Agreed with all that. Susan seems to think that concentrating on these matters wras distracting government from dealing with the 'bigger issues', and that people often think that the removal of Johnson will solve a multitude of problems. Well, the problems will remain to be faced, but Johnson being a compulsive liar would always be a distraction from concentrating on them. At least there is now the possibility of someone concentrating on 'the big issues' without feeling they must tell six humongous whoppers before breakfast.
-
Since my earlier post today, I have found out a bit more about Rishi Sumak. A friend was telling me that his father was a Pharmacist and that Rishi won a scholarship to University. I'll check more of this tomorrow.
-
Since my earlier post today, I have found out a bit more about Rishi Sumak.
I know you use a reader, but why on earth do you continually (it appears deliberately) get his name wrong - it is SuNak, not SuMak. I understand that a reader might get spelling wrong but how you spell his name is clearly not his name as, surely any reader, or listening to the radio would confirm.
A friend was telling me that his father was a Pharmacist and that Rishi won a scholarship to University. I'll check more of this tomorrow.
Why rely on your friend when there is huge amounts of reliable information on his background on the web.
Your friend is wrong - his mother was a pharmacist (well actually she owned pharmacies), his father was a GP. They were clearly pretty well off as despite recently emigrating from India they were able to send their son to some of the top independent schools, most notably the elite Winchester School. He went to Oxford (as I assume many of his Winchester School peers did) - I doubt very much he'd have received a scholarship. He did, however, attain a prestigious Fulbright Scholarship to attend Stanford for his MBA.
In an interview from 2001 that is now doing the rounds he quipped "I have friends who are aristocrats, I have friends who are upper class, I have friends who are working class… well, not working class". Pretty well sums it up - he is achingly establishment. He is also exceptionally rich - he and his wife are no 222 on the Sunday Times Rich List 2022 of wealthiest people in the UK. Their combined wealth is £730million. He is the first front-line politician ever to be in the rich list.
-
SD this gives full details of Sunak from some strange organisation called Conservativehome. I've not read it before but thought you might have:
https://conservativehome.com/2020/01/03/profile-rishi-sunak-rising-star-of-the-johnson-project/
Suank didn't get a "full scholarship". Whatever that means.
-
I know you use a reader, but why on earth do you continually (it appears deliberately) get his name wrong - it is SuNak, not SuMak. I understand that a reader might get spelling wrong but how you spell his name is clearly not his name as, surely any reader, or listening to the radio would confirm.
I listened to Synthetic Dave spell out his name. It is very difficult to hear the difference between M and N, especially as I use headphones - the sort that you just put into the ear - and my hearing isn't what it was.
Thank you for the rest of the information contained in your post.
-
SD this gives full details of Sunak from some strange organisation called Conservativehome. I've not read it before but thought you might have:
https://conservativehome.com/2020/01/03/profile-rishi-sunak-rising-star-of-the-johnson-project/
Suank didn't get a "full scholarship". Whatever that means.
ConservativeHome is a huge deal in the world of the Tory party - members, MPs etc take a huge amount of notice of what is written there.
And you are right - Sunak didn't receive a scholarship for Winchester College - he's been clear about that and indicated that his parents made 'considerable sacrifices' to afford the fees, which are currently £41k per year! Give that Rishi is one of three kids and I presume they were all sent to private schools, I'm struggling to see how this would have been affordable for a GP and a pharmacist, even with 'considerable sacrifices', so I suspect there is some other source of income in the background that hasn't really been revealed.
-
ConservativeHome is a huge deal in the world of the Tory party - members, MPs etc take a huge amount of notice of what is written there.
And you are right - Sunak didn't receive a scholarship for Winchester College - he's been clear about that and indicated that his parents made 'considerable sacrifices' to afford the fees, which are currently £41k per year! Give that Rishi is one of three kids and I presume they were all sent to private schools, I'm struggling to see how this would have been affordable for a GP and a pharmacist, even with 'considerable sacrifices', so I suspect there is some other source of income in the background that hasn't really been revealed.
Many thanks for the link - that was very interesting.
-
ConservativeHome is a huge deal in the world of the Tory party - members, MPs etc take a huge amount of notice of what is written there.
And you are right - Sunak didn't receive a scholarship for Winchester College - he's been clear about that and indicated that his parents made 'considerable sacrifices' to afford the fees, which are currently £41k per year! Give that Rishi is one of three kids and I presume they were all sent to private schools, I'm struggling to see how this would have been affordable for a GP and a pharmacist, even with 'considerable sacrifices', so I suspect there is some other source of income in the background that hasn't really been revealed.
For Winchester you can get a bursary or scholarship ( apparently 20% of the students do) and meet the rest of the payments with or without sacrifices according to circumstances.
Most professional (eg GPs, pharmacists with their own business etc) parents could afford other independent schools (eg. King Edwards VI in Southampton), again with or without sacrifices: mostly choices about houses, second homes, cars or expensive holidays.
ETA: Anyway, Sunak, even with his hindu background, elite education and career, and wealthy marriage, is a socialist and so unsuitable to lead the Conservatives!
-
Apparently Boris the Liar plans to elevate that prize moron Nadine Dorries to the House of Lords: yet another reason to get rid of that institution.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/16/johnson-plan-peerages-early-byelections-nadine-dorries-nigel-adams
-
Apparently Boris the Liar plans to elevate that prize moron Nadine Dorries to the House of Lords: yet another reason to get rid of that institution.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/16/johnson-plan-peerages-early-byelections-nadine-dorries-nigel-adams
On the plus side, she'd have to give up her seat.
Every cloud.......
-
For Winchester you can get a bursary or scholarship ( apparently 20% of the students do) and meet the rest of the payments with or without sacrifices according to circumstances.
But Sunak has been clear in interviews that he didn't receive a bursary or scholarship.
Most professional (eg GPs, pharmacists with their own business etc) parents could afford other independent schools (eg. King Edwards VI in Southampton), again with or without sacrifices: mostly choices about houses, second homes, cars or expensive holidays.
I'm not sure that is really true - I think professionals, particularly in the public sector would struggle to put three children through private school from the age of 5 without some other source of funds. Don't forget that people tend to be in the relatively early stages of a professional career when kids come along. Rishi's parents would have been in their early/mid 30s when starting to fork out, plus you need to factor in potential loss of earnings for the mother taking maternity breaks.
And if you are sending your kids to private school you need to factor in all the costs above and beyond the fees - so uniform and equipment can be eye watering and there is often an expectation that students will go on expensive extra-curricular trips etc.
So certainly in my experience (I know plenty of people you have sent their kids privately) you need pretty serious money to do so for multiple kids from the age of 5. It isn't uncommon for others to contribute, for example grandparents etc. Also not uncommon for parents to send their kids to state schools initially but then go private from the age of 11 - saves you a load of money.
But you also might want to consider a little more about Rishi's background - he is from Indian/East African tradition - his parents were both born in East Africa (Kenya and Tanzania), not in India. And that community was traditionally pretty rich with many being successful business people in countries such as Uganda, Kenya etc. So it is quite likely that there was some considerably wealth within the family prior to his parents relocating to the UK. Also, apparently one of his grandparents was awarded an MBE - again suggests we are dealing with a fairly establishment family.
-
But Sunak has been clear in interviews that he didn't receive a bursary or scholarship.
...
An interesting post, Prof, but seems to me to be quite speculative, without a great understanding of how people, especially Asians, conduct their affairs. Though private education and finance are really off-topic and in danger of revealing too many personal details I could relate some of my own history:
I do not know Sunak or his family and have not looked into their story, but do live a few miles from Southampton; Although I don't normally consider myself as living in a particular community, I could say that my local community is of South Asian origin people who arrived here from Africa - Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. I am socially engaged with that community and have known many people in it over many years.
I have also put our two children through the private education system ('til university). Note that I am talking about private day schooling, not boarding - which makes a big difference.
ETA: Should also mention that we are discussing financial and educational eras that are completely different wrt. the options possible - preThatcher, Thatcher, Blair, post-Blair.
Practically all Asians who arrived here from Africa during the 60's, no matter how well off they had been there, arrived with no money. Nearly everyone I know from that situation here arrived with barely £5 and no other goods or savings. Some had had good education and some were able to borrow money from relatives still in India. After arrival many worked in everyday normal jobs to retirement, others have built fortunes and earned knighthoods and honours. In all cases they saved what money they were able to and have been self-reliant thoughout their lives. Those that were financially successful (mostly self-employed) sent their children to independent schools, others to state schools - but in all cases they have paid for everything from their own savings - not bought anything on the never-never.
My eldest uncle arrived in the UK, from India, on business just as WWII broke out but was trapped here (after his ship was torpedoed on the return voyage) during the war. He had no money but managed to start and run business such that he was able to send for his two brothers (one of whom was my father) just before the independence of India. Over the next two decades they built a fortune but then, between them, managed to lose it gambling and socialising. This meant that I went through university (after grammar school) penniless, without a grant and the minimum possible support from my mum. After uni I was flat broke .. I found work in an industry that was starting to boom and built up my earnings rapidly to settle into a comfortable, but not outstanding, salary for a professional technical (not managerial) role in IT.
My wife came to the UK with her parents from India in the 60's, they found jobs in the state education system on very modest wages. She has mostly worked on low public sector wages in council services and community roles. When it came time to send our children to school we decided to send them through the private system as we could trust the education provided by local independent schools, where the state schools were in a mess after a decade of Thatcherism. Now, very few of my peers (mostly white English) in my workplace took the same option, they, even the managerial ranks, practically all chose the state system. We managed to afford the fees by budgeting carefully and saving where possible - I can't say we suffered or scrimped to afford them. We got to know many of the parents of other children in the private schools we chose, and very few of them could be considered particularly wealthy - just a sort of normal middle class - doctors, business managers, engineers, academics and self-employed small business people.
My industry peers earned around the same or more than me, I could not not understand what on earth they were spending their money on. In the end I have decided that it was on maximising the sizes of their homes and cars - both requiring huge mortgages or loans. They may leave huge estates when they die - or may not depending on the outstanding loans and taxes.
We had a modest house (never moved in fact) and modest cars. Never had any loans apart from an initial mortgage (at high Thatcher era interest rates)- pretty much the same as all the other Asian origin families around here - even those that have now bought themselves huge mansion like (to me) houses.
To me what is important is how well you are able to use your brain - not how much stuff you have or leave behind when you die.
-
Udayana
Very interesting post
-
Very informative post Udayana.
Just to emphasise the point. My partner's family arrived here from Tanzania in 1962 with very little money and three suitcases. That was a mother and 5 children, Dad had been sent on ahead 6 months earlier. They didn't, or couldn't afford to go down the road of private education. What their Mum did was work for the civil service and encouraged her children to do so as well, recognising the stability it offered. This may have been a reaction to the instability felt of having to move from what I gather was quite a comfortable and privileged lifestyle in East Africa, to living in a squalid one-bedroomed flat in one of the gloomier parts of South London sharing bathroom facilities with another family.
Anyway, all 5 children were mortgage free by their mid 30's, due in large part to something you identified, never buy anything on the never-never, and don't buy something you don't need.
Also, they make things last forever.
So what if your cooker door doesn't close properly?
That's what magnets are for.
Many people give up on socks when they get a hole in them. To this day not my partner.
Have you never heard of darning?
-
An interesting post, Prof, but seems to me to be quite speculative, without a great understanding of how people, especially Asians, conduct their affairs. Though private education and finance are really off-topic and in danger of revealing too many personal details I could relate some of my own history:
I do not know Sunak or his family and have not looked into their story, but do live a few miles from Southampton; Although I don't normally consider myself as living in a particular community, I could say that my local community is of South Asian origin people who arrived here from Africa - Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. I am socially engaged with that community and have known many people in it over many years.
I have also put our two children through the private education system ('til university). Note that I am talking about private day schooling, not boarding - which makes a big difference.
ETA: Should also mention that we are discussing financial and educational eras that are completely different wrt. the options possible - preThatcher, Thatcher, Blair, post-Blair.
Practically all Asians who arrived here from Africa during the 60's, no matter how well off they had been there, arrived with no money. Nearly everyone I know from that situation here arrived with barely £5 and no other goods or savings. Some had had good education and some were able to borrow money from relatives still in India. After arrival many worked in everyday normal jobs to retirement, others have built fortunes and earned knighthoods and honours. In all cases they saved what money they were able to and have been self-reliant thoughout their lives. Those that were financially successful (mostly self-employed) sent their children to independent schools, others to state schools - but in all cases they have paid for everything from their own savings - not bought anything on the never-never.
My eldest uncle arrived in the UK, from India, on business just as WWII broke out but was trapped here (after his ship was torpedoed on the return voyage) during the war. He had no money but managed to start and run business such that he was able to send for his two brothers (one of whom was my father) just before the independence of India. Over the next two decades they built a fortune but then, between them, managed to lose it gambling and socialising. This meant that I went through university (after grammar school) penniless, without a grant and the minimum possible support from my mum. After uni I was flat broke .. I found work in an industry that was starting to boom and built up my earnings rapidly to settle into a comfortable, but not outstanding, salary for a professional technical (not managerial) role in IT.
My wife came to the UK with her parents from India in the 60's, they found jobs in the state education system on very modest wages. She has mostly worked on low public sector wages in council services and community roles. When it came time to send our children to school we decided to send them through the private system as we could trust the education provided by local independent schools, where the state schools were in a mess after a decade of Thatcherism. Now, very few of my peers (mostly white English) in my workplace took the same option, they, even the managerial ranks, practically all chose the state system. We managed to afford the fees by budgeting carefully and saving where possible - I can't say we suffered or scrimped to afford them. We got to know many of the parents of other children in the private schools we chose, and very few of them could be considered particularly wealthy - just a sort of normal middle class - doctors, business managers, engineers, academics and self-employed small business people.
My industry peers earned around the same or more than me, I could not not understand what on earth they were spending their money on. In the end I have decided that it was on maximising the sizes of their homes and cars - both requiring huge mortgages or loans. They may leave huge estates when they die - or may not depending on the outstanding loans and taxes.
We had a modest house (never moved in fact) and modest cars. Never had any loans apart from an initial mortgage (at high Thatcher era interest rates)- pretty much the same as all the other Asian origin families around here - even those that have now bought themselves huge mansion like (to me) houses.
To me what is important is how well you are able to use your brain - not how much stuff you have or leave behind when you die.
Thanks for sharing, but your experience doesn't sound one bit like Rishi's.
You are talking about building up some savings over decades - this wasn't the case for the Sunaks. The biog suggests they met in East Africa after they'd trained and by 1980 when Sunak was born they were in Southampton aged 27 and 31 - you do the maths. They could only have been in the UK for a couple of years or so before Sunak was born.
Also you are correct day fees are different to boarding fees and the type of school is important. But Sunak was a boarder at one of the most expensive schools in the UK. Currently boarding fees there are three times the average (note average not lowest) private day school fees.
And also note that from their biog it is reported that once Sunak's sister was born they'd moved to a 6 bed house in a rather nice part of Southampton. So doesn't really sound like scrimping and saving if when you are having your second child you can afford to move to a 6 bed house and shortly start paying private school fees, which for three kids would probably last for the next 15-20 years.
Add to that that in the 1980s maternity cover was nothing like it is now so Rishi's mother probably had periods where she wasn't earning when her three children were babies, so they'd be operating on a single salary of a GP at a relatively early stage in his career.
So not it doesn't add up even with Rishi's claimed sacrifices made by his parents (which doesn't really square with being able to afford a 6 bed house and be sending their kids to private schools).
Nope it doesn't add up without some other form of income in the background. And Sunak's family doesn't sound anything like yours for the reasons I've mentioned.
-
Just to emphasise the point. My partner's family arrived here from Tanzania in 1962 with very little money and three suitcases. That was a mother and 5 children, Dad had been sent on ahead 6 months earlier. They didn't, or couldn't afford to go down the road of private education. What their Mum did was work for the civil service and encouraged her children to do so as well, recognising the stability it offered. This may have been a reaction to the instability felt of having to move from what I gather was quite a comfortable and privileged lifestyle in East Africa, to living in a squalid one-bedroomed flat in one of the gloomier parts of South London sharing bathroom facilities with another family.
Which doesn't seem to fit with the Sunak experience - likely relocated in the late 70s yet within a couple of years were living in a rather nice residential road with a young baby Sunak and a couple years later able to afford not just a 6 bedroom house but to send child number one (and thereafter the other two children) not just to private school but just about the most expensive private education going - being a boarder at Winchester College.
-
Part of one of the nations Johnson is supposed to lead is going into a climate-induced red weather warning.
There's an emergency COBRA meeting in Downingstreet....
So Johnson throws a leaving bash at Chequers.
Says it all, really.
-
Which doesn't seem to fit with the Sunak experience - likely relocated in the late 70s yet within a couple of years were living in a rather nice residential road with a young baby Sunak and a couple years later able to afford not just a 6 bedroom house but to send child number one (and thereafter the other two children) not just to private school but just about the most expensive private education going - being a boarder at Winchester College.
Yes sorry. I agree you can't say that Sunak's case is like others just because of the more general experience of Asians from East Africa. That must be some sort of "argumentum ad..."
Anyway, I think I maybe digressed more than I should have. :-X
-
Yes sorry. I agree you can't say that Sunak's case is like others just because of the more general experience of Asians from East Africa. That must be some sort of "argumentum ad..."
Anyway, I think I maybe digressed more than I should have. :-X
I agree - just because some people emigrated from East Africa to the UK in the 1960s with next to nothing doesn't mean a specific couple had next to nothing.
And apparently (according to the BMA) average GPs salaries adjusted to todays money were about £60k through the 1980s and 1990s. Pharmacists would be less. You do the maths - work out the take home pay and determine if is that going to sufficient to send three children through private school (and not just a bog standard private school but one with annual fees again in today's money of nigh on £45k) plus afford the mortgage on a 6 bed house (remember what interest rates were back then). Nope doesn't add up.
My suspicion is that there was some significant inherited or other wealth lurking in the background. This is often the case - plenty of kids private school fees are paid by the grandparents, directly or through trust funds, not by the parents.
-
I agree - just because some people emigrated from East Africa to the UK in the 1960s with next to nothing doesn't mean a specific couple had next to nothing.
And apparently (according to the BMA) average GPs salaries adjusted to todays money were about £60k through the 1980s and 1990s. Pharmacists would be less. You do the maths - work out the take home pay and determine if is that going to sufficient to send three children through private school (and not just a bog standard private school but one with annual fees again in today's money of nigh on £45k) plus afford the mortgage on a 6 bed house (remember what interest rates were back then). Nope doesn't add up.
My suspicion is that there was some significant inherited or other wealth lurking in the background. This is often the case - plenty of kids private school fees are paid by the grandparents, directly or through trust funds, not by the parents.
OK, I can accept that Sunak's family were far wealthier than other arrivals from East Africa, but can't see where you are going with this. #
Is it illegal or unethical for grandparents to pay school fees or pass on money to their descendants? Or are you suggesting that Sunak is somehow otherwise benefiting from illegal, unethical or unfair money transfers?
-
OK, I can accept that Sunak's family were far wealthier than other arrivals from East Africa, but can't see where you are going with this. #
Is it illegal or unethical for grandparents to pay school fees or pass on money to their descendants? Or are you suggesting that Sunak is somehow otherwise benefiting from illegal, unethical or unfair money transfers?
Of course it isn't illegal or unethical.
The issue I have is that Sunak has sold us all a humble origins story, which frankly isn't true. His campaign launch video literally starts with 'Let me tell you a story of a young woman who boarded a plane armed with hope for a better life ...' - classic rags to riches stuff. But conveniently fails to mention that over several generations his family was clearly upper middle class, stuffed with engineers, doctors, senior civil servants. That's the issue - Rishi's story isn't rags to riches, boy done good from working class origins, it is the story of a boy born into an already privileged environment catapulted from his school days into an exceptionally privileged environment.
In the video he doesn't want us to see (and certainly is completely different to the narrative he spins in his launch video), fresh from Winchester and Oxford he boasts that he has "friends who are aristocrats, I have friends who are upper-class, I have friends who are, you know, working-class", before correcting himself immediately: "Well, not working-class."
-
Of course it isn't illegal or unethical.
The issue I have is that Sunak has sold us all a humble origins story, which frankly isn't true. His campaign launch video literally starts with 'Let me tell you a story of a young woman who boarded a plane armed with hope for a better life ...' - classic rags to riches stuff. But conveniently fails to mention that over several generations his family was clearly upper middle class, stuffed with engineers, doctors, senior civil servants. That's the issue - Rishi's story isn't rags to riches, boy done good from working class origins, it is the story of a boy born into an already privileged environment catapulted from his school days into an exceptionally privileged environment.
In the video he doesn't want us to see (and certainly is completely different to the narrative he spins in his launch video), fresh from Winchester and Oxford he boasts that he has "friends who are aristocrats, I have friends who are upper-class, I have friends who are, you know, working-class", before correcting himself immediately: "Well, not working-class."
Ah, I see ... that's the kind of PR/twitter nonsense they've all been using to boost their "like" rates.
But he has been Chancellor for over two years under Johnson - so we already know he is a liar and hypocrite. We know he has put in place ludicrously unfair policies and easily defrauded schemes. That, instead of restoring regulations and controls to stabilise the economy, he, even yesterday, adopted Truss' deregulatory approach (to get "brexit benefits" after we have been told endlessly that Johnson had got "brexit done") to allow further chaos. That he is working for the banks not the people.
-
Which doesn't seem to fit with the Sunak experience - likely relocated in the late 70s yet within a couple of years were living in a rather nice residential road with a young baby Sunak and a couple years later able to afford not just a 6 bedroom house but to send child number one (and thereafter the other two children) not just to private school but just about the most expensive private education going - being a boarder at Winchester College.
Your speculations about Sunak's parents' wealth are not convincing PD. Similar to others from an Asian background, my parents came to the UK in 1971 with nothing. When my father arrived to do an MSc with no money - his bursary had fallen through - he summoned my mother to the UK who left behind a 6 month old baby and a 2 year old. My mother (a doctor) financially supported my father while he did his Engineering MSc at Birmingham, living in Birmingham hospital accommodation. My father borrowed money from a cousin in the UK - the cousin in the UK got the money (£20 a considerable amount in 1971) from a bank loan with no idea on how he would repay it to the bank. He just posted it to my father no questions asked.
Asian mentality when it comes to education means you will live on ordinary food, not go out much, spend little, borrow to finance it. I grew up in a household where we did not go abroad on holiday most of my childhood, very rarely had take-aways and never went to restaurants, because those funds were needed to support the education of many relatives. My parents bought a 3 bed semi-detached house in Harrow (suburb of London) in 1974 as my grandparents and my brother and I came to the UK in 1973. My grandparents did not work. Not sure how expensive a a 6 bed house in Southampton would have been compared to a 3 bed house in Harrow.
My brother and I went to private school for our secondary school education and in 1980 my parents bought a 4-bed detached house in a nice part of London near the tube station. My dad took a risk and got a big mortgage for the house - this was just after the 17% interest rates in the late 1970s. My dad got a job working for a private company in Nigeria in the late 1970s so we could not depend on his salary as Nigeria could not get foreign currency to pay his salary regularly - so my parents bought a 4 bed detached house in London and sent us to private school and funded the education of other relatives on my mother's salary working as a doctor for the NHS. So I can believe that Sunak's parents could send their children to private school and Sunak to Winchester. My dad did not get paid any salary from Nigeria for over a year. in the 1970s. Even after he left the job in Nigeria in the late 1980s - he was owed about 2 years' salary, which the company eventually paid about 2 years after he left their employment. I remember interest rates were pretty high in the late 1980s as well.
It was affordable because in our household no one drank, smoked, bought expensive clothes or toys or gadgets nor ate out and my parents were careful with money and managed to make the mortgage repayments. I remember having a happy childhood, with educational day trips and visiting relatives where we would receive presents of books and be quizzed on our timetables and fed lots of tasty home-cooked food. Education was just very important to many aspirational Asians and parents managed to sacrifice a lot and make ends meet.
A family friend who was also an NHS doctor sent his son to Eton during the 1980s because his son was exceptionally bright. Like Sunak's parents, this family friend also did a lot for his community - he was voluntary headmaster of a Saturday school for our ethnic community to learn our native language and culture. The school and the local temple also ran classes to tutor O'Level and A'Level students. I think the Sunak experience is typical of aspirational Asians with bright motivated, children.
-
Of course it isn't illegal or unethical.
The issue I have is that Sunak has sold us all a humble origins story, which frankly isn't true. His campaign launch video literally starts with 'Let me tell you a story of a young woman who boarded a plane armed with hope for a better life ...' - classic rags to riches stuff. But conveniently fails to mention that over several generations his family was clearly upper middle class, stuffed with engineers, doctors, senior civil servants. That's the issue - Rishi's story isn't rags to riches, boy done good from working class origins, it is the story of a boy born into an already privileged environment catapulted from his school days into an exceptionally privileged environment.
In the video he doesn't want us to see (and certainly is completely different to the narrative he spins in his launch video), fresh from Winchester and Oxford he boasts that he has "friends who are aristocrats, I have friends who are upper-class, I have friends who are, you know, working-class", before correcting himself immediately: "Well, not working-class."
Thank you for mentioning all that. I can't see videos, but even if I could hear it, my computer skills are not really up to it!
from what I have heard (on Five Live and here on R&E), I think Penny Mordaunt is perhaps the most likely as far as I'm concerned.
There was a body language expert on Five ive last night who was in the audience as far as I could make out, and her comments on the body language of all four were very interesting.)
Gabriella
I admire your parents' and family's approcch to lie. Never smoking and being able to almost count the number of alcoholic drink I have had on my fingers (and toes!) and never liking any of it anyway, are reasons why I have been able to manage money since being on my own.
-
Your speculations about Sunak's parents' wealth are not convincing PD. Similar to others from an Asian background, my parents came to the UK in 1971 with nothing.
...
Very interesting Gabriella, and confirms the general experiences of those families that managed to dig in and do well.
I'm also beginning to suspect that PD has mixed up Sunak's paternal grandparents story with that of his parents (?)
-
Thank you for mentioning all that. I can't see videos, but even if I could hear it, my computer skills are not really up to it!
from what I have heard (on Five Live and here on R&E), I think Penny Mordaunt is perhaps the most likely as far as I'm concerned.
There was a body language expert on Five ive last night who was in the audience as far as I could make out, and her comments on the body language of all four were very interesting.)
Gabriella
I admire your parents' and family's approcch to lie. Never smoking and being able to almost count the number of alcoholic drink I have had on my fingers (and toes!) and never liking any of it anyway, are reasons why I have been able to manage money since being on my own.
Oh dear SD, why would you need body language when you can hear and analyse what they actually claim and propose. Mordaunt clearly has no plan or understanding of how to put one together - particularly on the economic issues. Who would she have as Chancellor?
The biggest thing in her favour is that she speaks slowly and clearly - always an advantage!
-
Very interesting Gabriella, and confirms the general experiences of those families that managed to dig in and do well.
I'm also beginning to suspect that PD has mixed up Sunak's paternal grandparents story with that of his parents (?)
Not sure but I think if you haven't experienced it you can't imagine it's possible. I grew up here in the UK and I find it hard to imagine it's possible because my mindset is far less aspirational than my parents though I have inherited the careful spending approach, but nowhere near to the extent they took it.
Regarding what my parents achieved, I forgot to mention that my parents rented out their 4 bed house when I went to university and left the country and within a year bought a 2nd property - a 3 bed flat in London off Kensington High Street in the borough of Hammersmith & Fulham. My parents were both paid as employees so normal tax-payers - although admittedly my dad had been paid in GBP as an ex-pat for a year before they bought the 2nd property as he was living and working in Pakistan at this time, on the Afghan border, but for a UK engineering consultancy company. It was a time in Pakistan/ Afghanistan when foreign company workers were being kidnapped and ransomed so dad had to be escorted by armed guards when he went on site. My mum had not been working as she had given up her job to go be with my dad for that year. Before that mum had only been working part-time from when I was about 15. If you owned your own business as Sunak's mother did, you could probably make your money go much further as there are far more tax-planning opportunities. If she had a Ltd company - I don't know if Sunak's mother did open a Ltd - there was probably even better tax-planning opportunities available.
Like many aspirational immigrants, my father was a risk-taker and he was able to persuade my mother to take risks with him. She is not a natural risk-taker preferring safety and security, which meant she would make sure the money was saved or spent carefully.
I never felt deprived growing up - I just remember when my brother and I were young and asked to buy something "frivolous" or unnecessary e.g. to buy a burger at Wimpy's, that my parents would remind us the money could be better spent educating relatives. While putting my brother and I through private school, my parents paid for education abroad for my cousins. One first cousin is a doctor, in the US, another is an electrical engineer now in IT (both girls). My parents helped arrange marriages for relatives, paid dowries, loaned money. They also were political activists as well as doing charity work to try to help their community in Sri Lanka, who were being systematically oppressed through racist Sri Lankan government policy and who faced arbitrary arrest and torture from the government and mass murder in communal riots. I remember a couple of men staying in our house after the 1983 riots when I was a kid - my mum collected them from the refugee/immigration centre somewhere near London and mum sponsored them to stay in the UK (my dad was in Nigeria at the time). Mum had no idea who they were - someone had apparently called her and said they were a relative of a relative from my dad's village. Back then it was really hard to make or receive international calls to and from Nigeria so mum could not check with my dad. The wife of one of these refugees who mum sponsored joined her husband in the UK in the 1990s, once he had found a place to stay, and fast forward 20 years and she was kind enough to agree to tutor my eldest daughter (who was dyslexic) in Year 10 and Year 11 for her GCSEs and refused to accept more than a notional payment of £10 for each lesson - my daughter got all As and A*s. I think that's a kind of cool end to that story.
-
Which doesn't seem to fit with the Sunak experience - likely relocated in the late 70s yet within a couple of years were living in a rather nice residential road with a young baby Sunak and a couple years later able to afford not just a 6 bedroom house but to send child number one (and thereafter the other two children) not just to private school but just about the most expensive private education going - being a boarder at Winchester College.
Just watched Rishi Sunak's video for the 1st time, and it says his mother came to the UK in the 1960s when she was 15, lived in Southampton and studied to be a pharmacist. It was her mother ie Sunak's grandmother who initially came to the UK in the 1960s without her husband and children, whom she had left in East Africa. Sunak's grandmother came to the UK with very little money, got a job and settled in Southampton and saved enough to send for her husband and children.
By the time Rishi Sunak's mother finished school in the UK from 15-18yrs, went to university, qualified as a pharmacist and started earning and then married a GP, the couple (ie Rishi Sunak's parents) would have been able to afford a decent-sized house in Southampton in the 1980s if they got a mortgage and had saved for a deposit. If Rishi Sunak went to Winchester for his secondary education, that would give them plenty of time to save for the school fees after buying the house. Especially if Rishi Sunak's mother had her own pharmacy rather than being an employee for someone else. So, Rishi Sunak's parents were middle-class, as reflected by their professions and by their decision to prioritise spending any money they earned on their children's education rather than spend their money on holidays or other things. The headmaster of Winchester said many of the parents who sent their children to Winchester were middle class professionals who had made a conscious choice to pay for a good education and sacrifice in other areas of their lives. See this link to a book called Middle Classes, Their Rise and Sprawl https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/_/s98O6mjm94UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT109
-
Winchester is fairly close to Southampton. Is it feasible that Rishi Sunak went to school as a day boy rather than a boarder?
-
Not sure but I think if you haven't experienced it you can't imagine it's possible. I grew up here in the UK and I find it hard to imagine it's possible because my mindset is far less aspirational than my parents though I have inherited the careful spending approach, but nowhere near to the extent they took it.
...
Indeed, much the same here, though, my mum had a cautious and careful nature and upbringing but my dad had all the risk taking elements. Because of the initial success of the business he seemed to have cast off any caution he may have had. I have a mixture of both attitudes, recognising my tendency to risk taking and addictive behaviour and having learnt to manage it.
I would have been sent to a public school but refused to after the interview as the head and school itself seemed to have come straight out of Gormenghast and like a prison compared to the jewel of a grammar school, set in the green English countryside, that had offered me a place.
Apart from also supporting family in India in the early days there were any number of "hangers on", other Indian immigrants (not that many in the East End at that time - 50's early 60's), the London "fast set" ... bankers, actors and so on. After bankruptcy and marriage breakdown my mum took a job as a maths teacher to support me through uni and my younger siblings through school to uni.
In contrast, my parents-in-law lived very modestly and supported all of my father-in-laws siblings (I think there were about 9) through education, etc. As in other cases my mother-in-law left her children in India and came first, on the promise of teaching work - but after arriving, struggled for a couple years as schools would not actually give jobs to non-whites.
-
Just watched Rishi Sunak's video for the 1st time, and it says his mother came to the UK in the
...
Thanks, that is useful ... I've not seen any videos or blogs .. just not had the time to try and find an independent reliable source.
-
Winchester is fairly close to Southampton. Is it feasible that Rishi Sunak went to school as a day boy rather than a boarder?
Don't think so ...
-
Indeed, much the same here, though, my mum had a cautious and careful nature and upbringing but my dad had all the risk taking elements. Because of the initial success of the business he seemed to have cast off any caution he may have had. I have a mixture of both attitudes, recognising my tendency to risk taking and addictive behaviour and having learnt to manage it.
I would have been sent to a public school but refused to after the interview as the head and school itself seemed to have come straight out of Gormenghast and like a prison compared to the jewel of a grammar school, set in the green English countryside, that had offered me a place.
Apart from also supporting family in India in the early days there were any number of "hangers on", other Indian immigrants (not that many in the East End at that time - 50's early 60's), the London "fast set" ... bankers, actors and so on. After bankruptcy and marriage breakdown my mum took a job as a maths teacher to support me through uni and my younger siblings through school to uni.
In contrast, my parents-in-law lived very modestly and supported all of my father-in-laws siblings (I think there were about 9) through education, etc. As in other cases my mother-in-law left her children in India and came first, on the promise of teaching work - but after arriving, struggled for a couple years as schools would not actually give jobs to non-whites.
I had to look up Gormenghast - can see why the grammar school would be more appealing. I would have preferred a grammar school rather than private for my kids if there was one available near our home. My impression is that they spoon feed you in private school whereas grammar seems as though it requires more independent effort from the pupils.
I went to dinner with my parents last night and asked them about how they managed in the 1970s. Dad said if it wasn't for my grandmother (mum's mum) they would not have managed - apparently, she did an excellent job of cutting corners to make savings to manage with the money coming in. I remember she had a sewing machine and repaired our clothes and shopped and cooked and did the laundry etc and she and my grandfather looked after us kids while my parents worked. My mum was studying for her Registrar exams and she was on-call so my grandmother did most of the running of the home. She was a pretty amazing woman - she died of cancer when I was 9 and my grandfather died of cancer when I was 12.
Dad said the Nigerian company's money came in as a lump sum after he was not paid for ages and he used that as a deposit for the 4 bed detached house, plus the equity from the sale of the previous house, plus a mortgage plus he got an overdraft from the bank. I guess the risk paid off for them. Dad was lucky. They managed to be mortgage-free by 2002.
My dad said it was hard to get rental accommodation at first in the 70s due to racism but getting a job was ok. My mum got her job in Birmingham from Sri Lanka as the NHS needed qualified doctors so she did not have to interview. She also wore a sari to work every day (even in the winter) so did not need to buy new clothes for work and she didn't wear make-up. I guess that would have saved money.
-
Winchester is fairly close to Southampton. Is it feasible that Rishi Sunak went to school as a day boy rather than a boarder?
Feasible, but not the case.
It is well documented that Sunak attended Winchester College as a boarder - current annual fees are £45,936 per year, noting that Sunak did not receive a bursary or scholarship.
And to comment on points made by other posters - firstly Udayana is absolutely correct - lumping all private school costs together is non-sense. There is world of difference between a fairly low ranking private school as a day pupil, that might be of the order of £10k per year and an elite private school such as Winchester as a boarder.
Also on VG's claims that if you don't drink/smoke etc you'll be able to afford these fees - what complete non-sense. Let's do the maths, how many pints of beer would you have to drink a year to afford the £45,936 Winchester fees - let's assume £4 a pint - that would be 11,484 pints a year or 31 pints a day. If you were drinking at that level, you'd be dead. And that's just Rishi - he has two other siblings too.
Fundamentally to be able to decide what to spend £45,936 of your disposal take home pay on either school fees or other non-essential stuff (alcohol, smoking, make-up etc) you have to have £45,936 worth of disposable income in your take home pay. Most people don't. Indeed the average salary in the UK is £25k, which equates to about £21k after tax. So for two average earners that would be £42k total take home income - sure they can afford £45,936 a year (for just one kid) by cutting down on the booze and fags :o
Bottom line - Rishi's claim of humble beginnings is laughable - a guy whose family were moving from a 4-bed house to a 6-bed house (not much evidence of reining in the expenditure there) just at the point when he was being sent to private prep-school and then on to being a boarder at one of the most elitist and expensive private schools in the country. His background is achingly privileged and no amount of carefully curated and selective narrative about his grandparents (note he only really mentions one) changes this.
Oh and by the way the suggestion that his mother owned the pharmacy business during his school days is a compete red herring - a quick check reveals that she only started the pharmacy as a company in 2003, and Ashcroft's biography of Sunak suggests that through the 90s Sunak's mother was largely working only part-time as a locus pharmacist, so largely the eye-watering fees (presumably not just for Rishi would have had to come from his father's NHS income as a GP (through the 1980s and 1990s average salary adjusted to today's money was approx. £60-70k or about £30-35k take home).
-
Also on VG's claims that if you don't drink/smoke etc you'll be able to afford these fees - what complete non-sense. Let's do the maths, how many pints of beer would you have to drink a year to afford the £45,936 Winchester fees - let's assume £4 a pint - that would be 11,484 pints a year or 31 pints a day. If you were drinking at that level, you'd be dead. And that's just Rishi - he has two other siblings too.
I suggest you stop misrepresenting me PD. I did not claim this. But hey, you know you have already lost the argument when you have to resort to lying.
Fundamentally to be able to decide what to spend £45,936 of your disposal take home pay on either school fees or other non-essential stuff (alcohol, smoking, make-up etc) you have to have £45,936 worth of disposable income in your take home pay. Most people don't. Indeed the average salary in the UK is £25k, which equates to about £21k after tax. So for two average earners that would be £42k total take home income - sure they can afford £45,936 a year (for just one kid) by cutting down on the booze and fags :o
Why are you looking at today's fees? As Udayana and I pointed out via a link, private school fees have risen by 550 per cent, far out-stripping wage growth. Consumer prices in that time are up only 200 per cent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-charts-that-shows-how-private-school-fees-have-exploded-a7023056.html
Bottom line - Rishi's claim of humble beginnings is laughable - a guy whose family were moving from a 4-bed house to a 6-bed house (not much evidence of reining in the expenditure there) just at the point when he was being sent to private prep-school and then on to being a boarder at one of the most elitist and expensive private schools in the country. His background is achingly privileged and no amount of carefully curated and selective narrative about his grandparents (note he only really mentions one) changes this.
Where is this claim by Sunak of humble beginnings? You never actually linked to it.
Oh and by the way the suggestion that his mother owned the pharmacy business during his school days is a compete red herring - a quick check reveals that she only started the pharmacy as a company in 2003, and Ashcroft's biography of Sunak suggests that through the 90s Sunak's mother was largely working only part-time as a locus pharmacist, so largely the eye-watering fees (presumably not just for Rishi would have had to come from his father's NHS income as a GP (through the 1980s and 1990s average salary adjusted to today's money was approx. £60-70k or about £30-35k take home).
You do know that you can own a business without having to open a company right? We'll know the income and expenses of Sunak's parents during the 1990s when we see some evidence - tax returns, bank statements, evidence of who paid the school fees and the source of those payments etc
-
Oh ffs!
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/uk-news/boris-johnson-tipped-to-become-next-secretary-general-of-nato-by-conservative-party-articleshow.html
-
Oh ffs!
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/uk-news/boris-johnson-tipped-to-become-next-secretary-general-of-nato-by-conservative-party-articleshow.html
I suspect other NATO members will take a different view, and given that I gather the appointment requires unanimous approval from all members I suspect the likelihood of Johnson getting such approval is close to zero.
-
Oh ffs!
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/uk-news/boris-johnson-tipped-to-become-next-secretary-general-of-nato-by-conservative-party-articleshow.html
Hell's bells and buckets of bleeding oranges.......
-
It would be absolutely bonkers for that man to be the Secretary General of NATO unless they desire to have the organisation completely screwed up! :o >:(