Alexandole Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

[Ancient Citizen]

All the screaming and ranting about fat womanising liars and no TV debating is simply down to remainers now
cacking it that Johnson looks like being PM. The debate argument is being tried by everyone in the hope that he'll
balls something up and not get selected, which I understand, but I don't think the Tory membership will concern themselves
with it. There is a massive elephant in the room, which isn't being addressed with the frothing and ranting about Boris,
and how he's every kind of ****, and that is the phenomenal rise of the Brexit party. If the Conservatives fail to get this
country out of the EU by Halloween, one thing he's dead right about is that they will be utterly annihilated in a future GE,
if he manages it,and it's a big if, and it's out of all three main EU tenets, SM, CU and ECJ, then Farage's party is dead.
Leavers want Johnson, if not they'll have Farage, I know forecasts can be haphazard, but I wouldn't bet on Labour getting
an overall majority, far from it, which would mean, decisively, that the Commons would be changed radically.
There is simply nowhere else to go if you want out of the EU, Stewart is a nice bloke, but just wants May's effort,
as do other remain Tories, the party knows, however that that would be the end of them, so Boris it is.

 

[mcfc1632]

Of course they will...................so he only needs 60k votes to govern 60+m people. Democracy eh?

Profoundly undemocratic at so many/all levels - I agree

Been that way for ages though - I think that a case can be made that, apart from a PM dying, there should always be an election

As I say - profoundly undemocratic

 

[mat]

1. No deal Brexit crash out. Country grinds to a halt.
2. Tax cuts for the wealthy.
3. Esther McVey as Chancellor.
4. Closer relationship with the Don.
5. Sales of tank tops increase.

I wonder if Boris is slipping The Shit Scouse Thatcher one? She's all of sudden become one of his fan girls.

 

[mcfc1632]

So he's lying when he says "I will be giving personal direction to the negotiations but we will also have a very strong and ministerially led negotiating team.”...

Ha - you are doing it again - twisting words, being disingenuous etc.

I said:

"Well Johnson certainly would never be involved at the detailed level - as neither were Davis, Raab and that other so-called 'Brexit Secretary"

What he should do - and what May should have done - is to hand the conduct of the negotiations over to "a very strong and ministerially led negotiating team." - not some know-nothing EU sycophant Civil Servant."

That team, whilst being led by a minister, should be made up of experienced professionals - people that have conducted major negotiations - so not some of the 'successful business men and women' that have been touted. These should be people that people have not heard of - the experts that do the business - not those that 'front' a business.

He should set out 'ideal, realistic and fallback positions' on each of the key outcomes and be available to be briefed on progress.

Then he should keep his gob shut (and ensure the rest of the cabinet does the same) and leave the conduct of the negotiations to professionals

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Profoundly undemocratic at so many/all levels - I agree

Been that way for ages though - I think that a case can be made that, apart from a PM dying, there should always be an election

As I say - profoundly undemocratic

Yes, it may appear so, but it's what has been used as a mechanism for party leaders since time immemorial,
it always gets dragged up by those on the losing side every time someone they don't like get in, or threatens to.
Since the referendum we've had all sorts of political gymnastics involving adding up the kids not voting, another
one involving the older voters snuffing it, divvying up all the other votes and and adding them to others who might have,
could have or would have, anything but an acceptance of the rules in place before the vote was taken.

 

[mcfc1632]

I wholly disagree. If a senior politician was previously caught lying it would mean resignation was inevitable and a return to the office they previously held (or its equivalency) would be difficult to attain, if not impossible. John Profumo being a case in point; he spent the rest of his days following his resignation seeking redemption via charitable pursuits.

I would agree that most PMs had skeletons (don't we all) and many of them had affairs (Lloyd George, Major) and some operated in a dishonest way after entering office (Blair, Cameron) but that isn't the point I am advancing, which you appear to have missed.

Even Blair and Cameron had an air of integrity and vitality associated with them when they assumed office, irrespective of what skeletons they may have harboured in their respective cupboards.

Johnson is widely regarded (possibly not by you) as an inveterate and opportunistic liar at the point he (presumably) attains that office. That is the seismic shift that causes me such sadness.

Nothing to do with Brexit, or the Tory party (my politics generally being ever so slightly right of centre, in any event) but rather that someone so manifestly lacking character, and widely regarded as such, will attain the office of Prime Minister. To the best of my knowledge, that has never happened before. A truly sad day for our nation, if and when it happens.

Perhaps you don't see it in those terms, which you are perfectly entitled to do.

Couple of things - because generally I agree with all you say here

I misread your post to say 'Did we not have 'fitter' people...' - rather than a filter - and answered in that vein

I have nothing positive to say about Johnson - I have said that he is a spineless **** and has no moral compass

I have also said that - PMs dying aside - there is a case for a GE whenever there is a change

So the part I have bolded in your comment is wide of the mark

I am just commenting about the motivations of a good number/most of the detractors on here lobbying for debates and hoping that he does not get the gig at this moment in time - and I had you in mind when I said - 'with some exceptions'

I am also sad about the state of our politics - the thought that Johnson could be PM is a bewildering statement on the UK

I am just honest enough to admit that - as a temporary situation - it is something I will live with for what is bound to be a short time before he fucks up.

If it gets us (genuinely) out of the EU - for me that will prove to be a cherished legacy when history looks back at this time - even if (hopefully) he has a very short time as PM

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Couple of things - because generally I agree with all you say here

I misread your post to say 'Did we not have 'fitter' people...' - rather than a filter - and answered in that vein

I have nothing positive to say about Johnsons - I have said that he is a spineless **** and has no moral compass

I have also said that - PMs dying aside - there is a case for a GE whenever there is a change

So the part I have bolded in your comment is wide of the mark

I am just commenting about the motivations of a good number/most of the detractors on here lobbying for debates and hoping that he does not get the gig at this moment in time - and I had you in mind when I said - 'with some exceptions'

I am also sad about the state of our politics - the thought that Johnson could be PM is a bewildering statement on the UK

I am just honest enough to admit that it is a very temporary state that I will live with for what is bound to be a short time before he fucks up - if it gets us (genuinely) out of the EU - for me that will prove to be a cherished legacy when history looks back at this time - even if (hopefully) he has a very short time as PM

Pretty much everything you've said is fair enough, although I fail to see why a PM dying should present any shortcut to going to the electorate, as the end result would be the same, irrespective of the different circumstances that gave rise to it.

 

[stonerblue]

Johnson is a fundamentally shallow and nasty character doesn't stand for anything except whatever will play well with those he wants to appeal to in order to get himself further up the greasy pole.

Let's take his article on Salafi women who wear the niqab as an example (I have never seen anyone wearing a burka over here and I hang out in the right places), the one with the letter box jibe.

Now before anyone points out that Boris actually did not wish to ban Salafi women from dressing like this, his modus operandi in this instance was to pick an easy target (as Salafis of the quietist variety are apolitical - a point emphasised in Anabel Inge's recent study) and write about them in a manner that plays well with types who twirl their batons and shake their pom poms in support of characters like Yaxley-Lennon. This is possibly why Mohammed Amin, the chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum has threatened to resign if Johnson gets the nod.

Turning now to Gove [this is a repeat post by the way for the next few paragraphs], it is worth remembering that Gove was once the Education Secretary and pretty much wrecked the state system during his time in office. The fall-out from his incompetence reverberates right down to the present day.

Basically, cash-starved schools have been using the increased managerial powers that Heads and Deputy Heads were granted by him not to identify and remove incompetent staff but to use that as a pretext to get rid of the older, experienced and therefore more expensive ones. This is one of the reasons why schools have been haemorrhaging staff, an exodus prompted by the fact that those with transferable skills who can see the writing on the wall and are young enough to get out have been doing so. Consequently, schools in many areas have been struggling to recruit teachers with relevant degrees in subjects like, say, Physics or Mathematics, to teach GCSE and A Level. Those of you reading this with children of secondary school age might find it fruitful to look around at the next Parents Evening and make a rough calculation as to the average age of the staff they can see. Younger ones are cheaper to come by. Another litmus test if your child is in Years 10 to 13 is to find out whether their subject tutor actually has a degree in the subject they are teaching.

A further reform Gove introduced was to ‘toughen up’ the GCSE and A Level courses due to concerns that they were ‘easy’. But what has happened with some subjects was that the courses were simply crammed with superfluous, additional content that is almost impossible to get through in two years. So teachers now simply cram from day one and the need to rote-learn far too much means that the more important skills of analysis and logical and lateral thinking get neglected. And the effects of the reforms have been nonexistent: the boards that examine are anxious not to lose their ‘customers’ and simply mark these allegedly harder terminal papers more generously. But the effects on the students themselves have been profound, and it is the brighter ones that suffer the most because of the amount that they have to learn and the all too frequent testing that they have to endure. Where I am, too many of the cleverer ones are self-harming or becoming crippled by anxiety, and this is not because they are lacking in resilience or part of a ‘snowflake generation’.They are simply getting overwhelmed by the new curriculum because they are well-motivated and conscientious.

It's also worth noting that in the subject I teach at 'A' level it is necessary to explore 54 topics in depth. But the terminal papers will only ask about 12 of them at most. Where's the sense in that?

Additionally, if any teacher fessed up to drug use either back then or now they would be out of the door very quickly. I suppose that it is a different matter if someone is working with children but it was Gove who once presided over a system where the professional standards are higher than those that he is being held to.

Johnson might be habitually mendacious and manifestly incompetent but Gove is ideologically driven in all the wrong ways and therefore utterly unsuitable for any kind of high office regardless of his past drug use.

The other day I was flicking through one of Hunter S Thompson's books at random and found that he had once written that giving the US electorate the option of voting for either Clinton or Bush was like making them choose between a Leech and a Gila Monster.

It's the same with this Tory leadership contest. It's a veritable bestiary that the Tory party has to choose from, a fucking freak show.

Is there any possibility of all of them losing?

In closing, I should just quickly point out that my loathing of the two characters I have singled out for special attention above does not make me a supporter of Corbyn by default or something like that. I'm just someone who wants to see the excesses of capitalism reined in a bit and rampant economic inequality in our society (the consequence of thirty odd years of neoliberal economics) reduced.

Excellent post.

 

[Ban-jani]

But before any of that - she would have absolutely not have been so stupid as to allow the EU to set the process of withdrawal, allow the UK's negotiations to be led by an unqualified and incompetent civil servant and sign up to a WA with an unfettered backstop

I can’t decide on exactly what she’d do in this current situation.

She had the guts to do what she thought was best for the country, irrelevant of public outcry, her level of conviction was unbelievably strong.

That makes me think that she may have revoked in this scenario but then again she was very pro democracy and she may have seen revoke as undemocratic.

I don’t for a second think she’d ever have pressed ahead with No Deal. Britain being wrong on the world stage was one of the most important aspects of her leadership and No Deal obviously crushes that.

There isn’t another option but to have a backstop, if we’re going to leave the Customs Union and Single Market but I think she’d have been far more honest from the start on what was realistic and wouldn’t have set out the red lines that May did.

 

[mcfc1632]

Pretty much everything you've said is fair enough, although I fail to see why a PM dying should present any shortcut to going to the electorate, as the end result would be the same, irrespective of the different circumstances that gave rise to it.

We have the same view - 'a PM dying' was just my pragmatism/recognition that the country still needs to be led - same as there is a Vice President etc.

But perhaps what I mean is - PM dies = deputy PM taking over until an election can be called - perhaps after a pre-determined period, e.g. within 1 year

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

We have the same view - 'a PM dying' was just my pragmatism/recognition that the country still needs to be led - same as there is a Vice President etc.

But perhaps what I mean is - PM dies = deputy PM taking over until an election can be called - perhaps after a pre-determined period, e.g. within 1 year

Could be easily done within 13 weeks.

 

[Vic]

Ha - you are doing it again - twisting words, being disingenuous etc.

I said:

"Well Johnson certainly would never be involved at the detailed level - as neither were Davis, Raab and that other so-called 'Brexit Secretary"

What he should do - and what May should have done is to hand the conduct of the negotiations to "a very strong and ministerially led negotiating team." - not some know-nothing EU sycophant Civil Servant."

That team, whilst being led by a minister should be made up of experienced professionals - people that have conducted major negotiations - so not some of the 'successful business men and women that have been touted.

He should set out some ideal, realistic and fallback position on key outcomes and be available to be briefed on progress

So which minister will lead? McVey?

Actually, I get it now. You don't know who, Johnson doesn't know who, and what we need is unicorn negotiators for unicorn negotiations from a unicorn negotiating position.

All our best negotiators were (still are?) working for the EU and most of them know our position is not a good one and never would be.

Of course you could do it, but you want No Deal, so not much to negotiate.

 

[mcfc1632]

I can’t decide on exactly what she’d do in this current situation.

She had the guts to do what she thought was best for the country, irrelevant of public outcry, her level of conviction was unbelievably strong.

That makes me think that she may have revoked in this scenario but then again she was very pro democracy and she may have seen revoke as undemocratic.

I don’t for a second think she’d ever have pressed ahead with No Deal. Britain being wrong on the world stage was one of the most important aspects of her leadership and No Deal obviously crushes that.

There isn’t another option but to have a backstop, if we’re going to leave the Customs Union and Single Market but I think she’d have been far more honest from the start on what was realistic and wouldn’t have set out the red lines that May did.

Yeah - it is not really possible to think of what she would do - I was only pointing out what she would not do.

Looking at it from your viewpoint as well:

she also would not have held the referendum
she would not have given up a big chunk of the rebate for no good reason - and generally
she would not have allowed the EU/UK relationship to have deteriorated to the extent that the majority of the electorate decided that they would rather leave

Oh - and of course there are options to the backstop - as it is currently set out

 

[Vic]

I can’t decide on exactly what she’d do in this current situation.

She had the guts to do what she thought was best for the country, irrelevant of public outcry, her level of conviction was unbelievably strong.

That makes me think that she may have revoked in this scenario but then again she was very pro democracy and she may have seen revoke as undemocratic.

I don’t for a second think she’d ever have pressed ahead with No Deal. Britain being wrong on the world stage was one of the most important aspects of her leadership and No Deal obviously crushes that.

There isn’t another option but to have a backstop, if we’re going to leave the Customs Union and Single Market but I think she’d have been far more honest from the start on what was realistic and wouldn’t have set out the red lines that May did.

I can hear her now.

"There is no mandate for No Deal. No. No. No."

 

[mcfc1632]

Could be easily done within 13 weeks.

yeah - fine

 

[mcfc1632]

So which minister will lead? McVey?

Actually, I get it now. You don't know who, Johnson doesn't know who, and what we need is unicorn negotiators for unicorn negotiations from a unicorn negotiating position.

All our best negotiators were (still are?) working for the EU and most of them know our position is not a good one and never would be.

Of course you could do it, but you want No Deal, so not much to negotiate.

You're just chatting shit now IMO

Why? was it not possible to just twist my words?

There are many experienced negotiators in the UK - do you even understand the concept of establishing negotiating positions and then letting professional do the conducting?

Must you always bring things down to personalities like McVey, Boris etc. - so limited in thought IMO

Yep - we have a shit hand - made worse through 3 years of incompetence and especially not using that time to establish the viability of a no-deal through preparations. Whatever your starting position as you enter negotiations - you need to act to make the best of it - for that you need professionals not enthusiastic amateurs

 

[Ban-jani]

Yeah - it is not really possible to think of what she would do - I was only pointing out what she would not do.

Looking at it from your viewpoint as well:

she also would not have held the referendum
she would not have given up a big chunk of the rebate for no good reason - and generally
she would not have allowed the EU/UK relationship to have deteriorated to the extent that the majority of the electorate decided that they would rather leave

We certainly wouldn’t be in the mess we are.

 

[Vic]

We have the same view - 'a PM dying' was just my pragmatism/recognition that the country still needs to be led - same as there is a Vice President etc.

But perhaps what I mean is - PM dies = deputy PM taking over until an election can be called - perhaps after a pre-determined period, e.g. within 1 year

Having party members decide on party leader is the problem. That's ok if it's before a GE but between elections it has problems. It leaves the choice of PM in the hands of a small group unrepresentative of the electorate, and may leave a government led by someone who does not really have the confidence of a majority of elected MPs.

 

[Vic]

You're just chatting shit now IMO

Why? was it not possible to just twist my words?

There are many experienced negotiators in the UK - do you even understand the concept of establishing negotiating positions and then letting professional do the conducting?

Must you always bring things down to personalities like McVey, Boris etc. - so limited in thought IMO

I think we have an established negotiating position and it has meant our negotiators have been "chatting shit" for three years.

 

[mcfc1632]

Having party members decide on party leader is the problem. That's ok if it's before a GE but between elections it has problems. It leaves the choice of PM in the hands of a small group unrepresentative of the electorate, and may leave a government led by someone who does not really have the confidence of a majority of elected MPs.

Yep - as said it is all profoundly undemocratic - but it is what it is and what therefore should happen now.

Perhaps afterwards the CP will change the processes