Credulous, I assume, because, unlike you I'm capable of objective thought, ongoing reappraisal of my perspective on a subject and sometimes, changing my views and admitting I was wrong, as I have done over Cameron, something you doubtless view as a weakness, but I hold to be a strength; in any event, your comments about my credulity are water off a duck's back, as I'm certain I'm better equipped to deal with the rough and tumble associated with the inherent dishonestly and venality of men than most - something I do every working day with no little skill and something I'm very well rewarded for so doing.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, as you appear to have failed to grasped the simple point I was advancing; Johnson's rise, in spite of his dishonesty and malign nature, is remarkable because he was widely derided as a figure of fun only a few short years ago, unlike (to any meaningful extent) any previous incoming PM. That is a remarkable achievement and the fact you were unable to decipher that from what I posted, or are unable to acknowledge it, indicates that you are incapable of applying your mind objectively to political thought, which is your loss and reflects far more poorly on you than it does me.
I don't have a problem with your previous admiration for Cameron because it wasn't obvious that his personality flaws would lead us to the current existential crisis.
However in the case of Johnson it is obvious that the man is leading us into a crisis yet you express 'admiration' for ' the manner of his rise'.
IMO the man and 'the manner of his rise' are inextricably linked, so you cannot express admiration for one without the other.
 
I don't have a problem with your previous admiration for Cameron because it wasn't obvious that his personality flaws would lead us to the current existential crisis.
However in the case of Johnson it is obvious that the man is leading us into a crisis yet you express 'admiration' for ' the manner of his rise'.
IMO the man and 'the manner of his rise' are inextricably linked, so you cannot express admiration for one without the other.
I disagree with your perspective, as unlike you it would seem, I am capable of feeling a degree of admiration for someone I neither trust nor like. Thatcher would be another such example.

I said there is something to admire about the manner of his rise; as in the chutzpah and brazenness of it, much like Stalin, for example. Corbyn deserves some too for becoming leader at such an advanced stage in his political career. People who seize their opportunity in life are deserving of a degree of admiration in my eyes, although that can soon dissipate if they fail to make the most of that opportunity, like May.

As to Cameron, my admiration for him was simply in terms of what I perceived his political skill, antennae and sure footedness to be, all of which, I readily concede, were misconceived and poorly stand the test of time. We all make mistakes Len; even me.

As to Johnson, I still think he's a **** and nothing I've posted in the last few days alters that.
 
I disagree with your perspective, as unlike you it would seem, I am capable of feeling a degree of admiration for someone I neither trust nor like. Thatcher would be another such example.

I said there is something to admire about the manner of his rise; as in the chutzpah and brazenness of it, much like Stalin, for example. Corbyn deserves some too for becoming leader at such an advanced stage in his political career. People who seize their opportunity in life are deserving of a degree of admiration in my eyes, although that can soon dissipate if they fail to make the most of that opportunity, like May.

As to Cameron, my admiration for him was simply in terms of what I perceived his political skill, antennae and sure footedness to be, all of which, I readily concede, were misconceived and poorly stand the test of time. We all make mistakes Len; even me.

As to Johnson, I still think he's a **** and nothing I've posted in the last few days alters that.
I understand your perspective better now. Agree with some but not all.You answered my next question which was going to be about Jezza, but if you (rightly) extend the debate to say Stalin et al that's where we enter the 'grey ' areas of this debate.
As for my 'credulous' criticism that probably was somewhat OTT as I freely admit I'm not at my best at half eight in the morning.
 
Johnson has reinstated Mark Field claiming what he did was under May so not his business to deal with it.
 
£100 million has been found to produce propaganda to dupe us all into accepting a no deal Brexit. How many coppers/nurses could that pay for?
 
I understand your perspective better now. Agree with some but not all.You answered my next question which was going to be about Jezza, but if you (rightly) extend the debate to say Stalin et al that's where we enter the 'grey ' areas of this debate.
As for my 'credulous' criticism that probably was somewhat OTT as I freely admit I'm not at my best at half eight in the morning.
Ok. No dramas.
 
£100 million has been found to produce propaganda to dupe us all into accepting a no deal Brexit. How many coppers/nurses could that pay for?

Not enough to handle the fallout from millions of job losses.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.