Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

12122242627135

Comments

  • This maybe because John Major has said publicly that he thinks that the pm may try to evade the Benn bill by using an order in council.
  • This maybe because John Major has said publicly that he thinks that the pm may try to evade the Benn bill by using an order in council.

    Order of Council. The distinction is important (apparently the latter insulates the Queen).
  • This maybe because John Major has said publicly that he thinks that the pm may try to evade the Benn bill by using an order in council.

    In which case the House will no doubt mandate the Speaker to go to Brussels in Piffle's place. What they will then do to Piffle, I leave to your imagination.
  • Having read some legal experts on Twitter, I think this is all nonsense. The problem is that the EU might say No. That's the real risk (Link).

    In the meantime, my favourite economics blogger has repeated his recent habit of blogging about politics with this post:

    This is the most dangerous UK government we have seen in our lifetimes

    I realised some time ago that there is nothing I have ever said that C.S.Lewis hasn't said better... Same applies here, maybe it's something to do with the name.... :wink:

    AFZ
  • The problem is that the EU might say No. That's the real risk

    If even you are at last openly acknowledging this, things really do look grim.
  • @Eutychus I don’t think we have not acknowledged that the EU may say no. The thing is we have been talking strategies. The strategies the various groups are working on and the assumptions they are working on. The EU saying no is one assumption. We have talked about what could happen if they do.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I think Macron might indeed say enough is enough. And who could blame him? Or indeed anybody else. The UK has had three years to "get its shit together" and has failed.

    Given this thread is a rant against Boris, I want to second the outrage about the humbug comment. The threats against MPs opposed to a No Deal Brexit have been and continue to be very real.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    @Eutychus I don’t think we have not acknowledged that the EU may say no. The thing is we have been talking strategies. The strategies the various groups are working on and the assumptions they are working on. The EU saying no is one assumption. We have talked about what could happen if they do.

    From my perspective the assumption that they are more likely to say yes has had an adverse effect on opposition strategies, and plays into Boris' hands.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    I suspect opinions are mixed at Heads of State levels. Up to now, the view that prevailed was "make sure we can't be blamed for a No Deal Brexit" but I guess folks will be thinking "we're going to get blamed any way and so we just need to move on".
  • I have been away for a few days but am now catching up with increasingly horrified incredulity. Boris's attitude is that of a spoiled child stamping and shouting at Nanny. He has forgotten, if he ever knew, the historic words of the great Lord Denning: 'Be you never so high, the law is above you.'
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I think Macron might indeed say enough is enough. And who could blame him? Or indeed anybody else. The UK has had three years to "get its shit together" and has failed.

    Given this thread is a rant against Boris, I want to second the outrage about the humbug comment. The threats against MPs opposed to a No Deal Brexit have been and continue to be very real.

    He might. But if the other nations, particularly Ireland, want to say yes then Macron will have to decide whether the price of being the one who said no will be worth it.
  • A quick reminder on the character of Mr Johnson.

    AFZ

    Full interview on YouTube here.
  • Much as it does violence to my soul, ... to be fair to BJ ... he had been awake for 24hrs and and answering questions for 3hrs.

    Since he got the job he has aged roughly five years. If he can't handle three hours questioning, well, that happens to criminal suspects day in, day out. If Boris hasn't the capacity for the job, as it is quaintly put in the Civil Service, he should go before the job kills him. Maybe his walk-out was a sign.
  • I'm sure it was: a sign to voters that he is prepared to defy Parliament. In doing so he is embodying their exasperation with 'the system' and hoping they'll identify with him in his 'people versus Parliament' narrative.
  • In that case it back fired. He is the PM. He has a responsibility to Parliament. Unless he had a very good reason to leave then it looks childish
  • It won't have back-fired if he gets re-elected.
  • Not to disgruntled Leavers he doesn't. He looks like he's taking a brave and muscular stand against the hypocrisy of the system enslaved to its masters in Brussels.
  • And yet a substantial amount of those slaves want to leave, just not without a deal
  • He's gambling. It seems a reasonable gamble to me, that enough people will be taken with his cute tousled hair, and his hysterical pronouncements, to vote him in. Also of course, those hoping to make a few bob out of it, and maybe some disgruntled or desperate people. He also seems to offer decisiveness, which is probably a mirage. Who can resist Gramsci again, "in the interregnum a variety of morbid symptoms appear".
  • A quick reminder on the character of Mr Johnson.

    AFZ

    Full interview on YouTube here.

    I love Eddie Mair. That is all.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    It amazes me - and not in a good way - how our countries have, in tandem, been snookered into embracing terrible leaders and their terrible policies. Kyrie eleison.
  • Yes @Rossweisse something seems to have gone wrong which seems to be exclusive to a significant part of the Anglophone world.
  • Dave W wrote: »

    Indeed. And there's that Duterte psychopath as well. Le Pen in France. OK, not in charge, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.

    Something broke in 2016. It's the year my mother died, so perhaps she was actually God after all.
  • A quick reminder on the character of Mr Johnson.

    AFZ

    Full interview on YouTube here.

    I love Eddie Mair. That is all.

    Those of us who remember Brian Redhead will say that Boris was getting an an easy ride. Redhead would have got Boris to dig his own grave first and only then condemning himself.
  • No grave, just a ditch.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Le Pen in France. OK, not in charge, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.

    Something broke in 2016. It's the year my mother died, so perhaps she was actually God after all.

    Marine Le Pen's niece Marion Maréchal Le Pen is the one to watch. Has taken a step back from politics to head up a political institute busy training up future party cadres on subjects like "the Islamisation of France" and extending the Rassemblement National's base at grassroots and local level, doubtless ready for a shot at the presidency once her auntie's past it.

    The prevailing theory here is that somebody messed with the Large Hadron Collider in 2016 and put us on an alternative timeline.
  • Bowie died in Jan 2016. Clearly he held the world together.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »

    Indeed. And there's that Duterte psychopath as well. Le Pen in France. OK, not in charge, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.

    Something broke in 2016. It's the year my mother died, so perhaps she was actually God after all.

    Conversely my daughter was born that year. Make of that what you will.
  • I don’t see why it’s so hard for some people to accept that the problem is there’s a significant number of poor white people who over the last few decades (regardless of which party has been in power) have had a growing perception that everyone else is getting stuff while they get nothing.

    The rich are running the show, so of course they get stuff. And minorities have all kinds of schemes and initiatives designed to improve their share of the pie. But all the poor white people get are accusations of racism and privilege. Is it any wonder they’re aching to follow someone who will (claim to) put them first and do what they want?
  • I don’t see why it’s so hard for some people to accept that the problem is there’s a significant number of poor white people who over the last few decades (regardless of which party has been in power) have had a growing perception that everyone else is getting stuff while they get nothing.

    The rich are running the show, so of course they get stuff. And minorities have all kinds of schemes and initiatives designed to improve their share of the pie. But all the poor white people get are accusations of racism and privilege. Is it any wonder they’re aching to follow someone who will (claim to) put them first and do what they want?

    Marvin, you’re falling for the rhetoric of the privileged. The poor white people are poor because of the actions of the rich who are 99% white. Many of the “schemes for minorities” exist only in the pages of newspapers that are owned by the rich and the other schemes and provisions don’t make much difference or cost much either.

    The poor have been conned, and in Boris we have another con man.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Le Pen in France. OK, not in charge, but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility.

    Something broke in 2016. It's the year my mother died, so perhaps she was actually God after all.

    Marine Le Pen's niece Marion Maréchal Le Pen is the one to watch. Has taken a step back from politics to head up a political institute busy training up future party cadres on subjects like "the Islamisation of France" and extending the Rassemblement National's base at grassroots and local level, doubtless ready for a shot at the presidency once her auntie's past it.

    The prevailing theory here is that somebody messed with the Large Hadron Collider in 2016 and put us on an alternative timeline.

    I've heard that said about the Large Hadron Collider before. I wonder if it's true?
    :scream:


  • sionisais wrote: »
    The poor have been conned, and in Boris we have another con man.

    My point is that they’d rather follow a con man who claims to care about them than an honest man who doesn’t.
  • sionisais wrote: »
    The poor have been conned, and in Boris we have another con man.

    My point is that they’d rather follow a con man who claims to care about them than an honest man who doesn’t.

    They don't want to support an honest man who does, either, because they've been seduced by the easy lies.
  • They don't want to support an honest man who does, either

    Who would that be then?
  • They don't want to support an honest man who does, either

    Who would that be then?

    Let’s go with someone who hasn’t lied to his wives and hasn’t been sacked from a reputable newspaper for fabrication. Someone who isn’t a turncoat and isn’t in favour of alleged welfare policies that actually kill people.
  • Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps (AFAIK)?
  • They don't want to support an honest man who does, either

    Who would that be then?

    Ed Miliband? [I do think Jeremy Corbyn too, but I'm not in the mood for 15 rounds of "let's compare Corbyn's version of events with the Daily Heil spin"]
  • Indeed - as has been said before, 'O for the chaos of an Ed Miliband government!'...
  • Indeed - as has been said before, 'O for the chaos of an Ed Miliband government!'...

    I tell you what; if Miliband came to head up a GNU that would be too good a plot twist. I, for one, would love it. No fiction-writer would dare write that plot.

    AFZ
  • sionisais wrote: »
    They don't want to support an honest man who does, either

    Who would that be then?

    Let’s go with someone who hasn’t lied to his wives and hasn’t been sacked from a reputable newspaper for fabrication. Someone who isn’t a turncoat and isn’t in favour of alleged welfare policies that actually kill people.

    I think you’ve missed my point. None of what you say is about how much attention and care they will give to the ignored poor.
  • Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps (AFAIK)?

    Ha, no. To the extent that he cares about the people under discussion at all, it’s in the “I know what’s best for you, so be good little proles and shut up and accept it” category.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    I'm sure it was: a sign to voters that he is prepared to defy Parliament. In doing so he is embodying their exasperation with 'the system' and hoping they'll identify with him in his 'people versus Parliament' narrative.

    The problem with the narrative that Parliament is corrupt, the law is biased etc is that eventually it will turn on those peddling it and gobble them up too
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    The part that is difficult to swallow about Marv's proposed narrative is that it assumes that poor people are mostly idiots. Which, obviously, they are not.

    Xenophobes, on the other hand, are idiots by definition. With a high probability of not being successful, but not necessarily. I think Marv's just grasping the wrong end of the stick.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I'm sure it was: a sign to voters that he is prepared to defy Parliament. In doing so he is embodying their exasperation with 'the system' and hoping they'll identify with him in his 'people versus Parliament' narrative.

    The problem with the narrative that Parliament is corrupt, the law is biased etc is that eventually it will turn on those peddling it and gobble them up too

    The current lot will have cashed out and into the world of lucrative directorships, consultancy, and public speaking by then.
  • Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps (AFAIK)?

    Ha, no. To the extent that he cares about the people under discussion at all, it’s in the “I know what’s best for you, so be good little proles and shut up and accept it” category.

    As predicted...
  • Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps (AFAIK)?

    Ha, no. To the extent that he cares about the people under discussion at all, it’s in the “I know what’s best for you, so be good little proles and shut up and accept it” category.

    Really ? I can think of a hell of a lot of people who think getting rid of universal credit, for example, is an excellent idea. Likewise, trying to build more housing and bring down rents.
  • RooK wrote: »
    The part that is difficult to swallow about Marv's proposed narrative is that it assumes that poor people are mostly idiots. Which, obviously, they are not.

    Xenophobes, on the other hand, are idiots by definition. With a high probability of not being successful, but not necessarily. I think Marv's just grasping the wrong end of the stick.

    Yes. I'm sure the breakdown of how people voted by age, class, income level etc, would be informative, for this argument. Eg, a fairly significant proportion of older people voted leave; many of whom might've started life as struggling working-class, but are now living quite comfortably (possibly the last generation to do so) on work-related pensions, accumulated property investments etc, before current recessionary banking politics began to sell us off to the highest bidder. Just one small dynamic amongst a whole mess of dynamics to be taken into account.

    The reasons for people voting leave are numerous and complex. One Leaver acquaintance of mine hasn't lived in the UK for over 35 years; her husband's work took them to (some very nice!) parts of the EU, and they have retired to a gorgeous part of France. She has no intention of living in the post-Brexit Britain she voted for. Her reason for voting leave is NOT going to be the same as another acquaintance, who believes his vote is halting the evil of Islam from infiltrating his country, and anyway as he regularly shoots his own dinner out in the woods, and can build stone huts and grow vegetables, he's the pattern for good, godly living and everyone else is being soft.

    The genius of the leave campaign was to convince all these leavers that they were on the same side; so if they voted leave, they were all voting for the same thing. Which, at the risk of being called a snooty remainer, appears to be evidently bullshit to me.
  • Jeremy Corbyn, perhaps (AFAIK)?

    Ha, no. To the extent that he cares about the people under discussion at all, it’s in the “I know what’s best for you, so be good little proles and shut up and accept it” category.

    Really ? I can think of a hell of a lot of people who think getting rid of universal credit, for example, is an excellent idea. Likewise, trying to build more housing and bring down rents.
    Specifically building more council housing. Add in public services under public ownership, a health service (and social services) working to improve the health of the nation rather than make a profit (or, spend the least money), an intent to reduce our environmental impact (though unambitious is better than the Tory approach of ignoring it and hope the climate heals itself) ... what's the problem?

Sign In or Register to comment.