An intriguing (if scary) thought, but he may not have the chance.
The Unspeakable Gove has confirmed that BoJo missed FIVE emergency 'Cobra' meetings, presumably before he (BoJo) fell ill, so I wonder if the scraping sound I can hear is that of the Sharpening of Knives, Backs for the Stabbing of?
And enquiring minds would like to know what BoJo found so much more important than the said meetings...
You need to recognise the difference between something needing a source and a comment. I made a comment specifically on one statement . Did you really expect me to give full details of the 2019 general election results ?
No. What I expected was you to acknowledge that as two people pointed out, the post you quoted requesting evidence for the claim it made actually supplied evidence.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your political convictions, it's a matter of basic respect for other posters. Either you didn't read the post you quoted properly, or you chose to disingenuously pretend it didn't say what it said. Worse still, you're now doubling down instead of conceding the point.
I don't care whether you're a Corbynite or bow down to an idol of Boris every morning, if you can't master basic forum etiquette for discussion you deserve all the Hell calls you get until you can learn it.
Just reading Richard North's blog, where someone described Boris as a "sick man, whose indolence has contributed to thousands of lives and crushed the livelihoods of so many people". I think the Mail and Express would differ.
But the worst outcome would surely be Boris quitting, as he would forever be labelled a martyr, and the lost king over the water.
An intriguing (if scary) thought, but he may not have the chance.
The Unspeakable Gove has confirmed that BoJo missed FIVE emergency 'Cobra' meetings, presumably before he (BoJo) fell ill, so I wonder if the scraping sound I can hear is that of the Sharpening of Knives, Backs for the Stabbing of?
Well, if that's the case, perhaps he should resign.
Would that provide the opportunity to set up a GNU?
No. A GNU is not going to happen because there is no need for it to happen, unless you’re so anti-Tory that you’ll use any excuse - even a global pandemic - to try to get rid of them.
I think the point of a GNU is supposed to be to ensure that everyone pulls in the same directions and puts party politics aside for the duration.
I doubt it will happen - but it may do if the situation deteriorates enough.
What do you people mean by GNU in this context? I am aware of a large ungulate mammal and the "gnu public license" where GNU stands for "GNU's not unix". I presume you mean something different than anti-copyright, copyleft ↄ⃝. and anti-intellectual property patents.
Well, if that's the case, perhaps he should resign.
Would that provide the opportunity to set up a GNU?
No. A GNU is not going to happen because there is no need for it to happen, unless you’re so anti-Tory that you’ll use any excuse - even a global pandemic - to try to get rid of them.
I think the point of a GNU is supposed to be to ensure that everyone pulls in the same directions and puts party politics aside for the duration.
I doubt it will happen - but it may do if the situation deteriorates enough.
What do you people mean by GNU in this context? I am aware of a large ungulate mammal and the "gnu public license" where GNU stands for "GNU's not unix". I presume you mean something different than anti-copyright, copyleft ↄ⃝. and anti-intellectual property patents.
Government (of) National Unity. Like what fought WW2. Mostly these days it's a pipe dream of those who think they can return to the Glorious Centrist Past by mashing together the liberal tories and the Labour right. You'd think that idea would have died with the Tiggers' election prospects but apparently not.
The Govester is the preferred candidate of the Murdochs. That's why the ST hatchet-job shouldn't come as a surprise.
Presumably you mean Sunday Times by ST. What I find interesting is that it's not known as a left wing journal. How significant is it for Johnson's future that the Times is criticising him?
And another thing. Why do so many people call him "Boris", as though he's a mate? Politicians normally get called by their surnames. I didn't fall for "Call me Dave" when Cameron used it, and I had more time for him than I do for the current Prime Minister.
So, you admit that the Labour manifesto statements about returning some public services back into public ownership (which was also in the manifesto of the Greens, at least) was not a significant factor in the 2019 result. And, hence your statement
What is your evidence that the public favours nationalisation? Would it be a 80 seat majority for the Conservatives ?
is complete bollocks as the public support for public ownership of public services is uncorrelated with the 80 seat Tory majority.
You have no evidence that the public favours Labours policies. By the way, Corbyn was rejected because his Brexit policy was incompetent. He was incompetent
The Govester is the preferred candidate of the Murdochs. That's why the ST hatchet-job shouldn't come as a surprise.
Presumably you mean Sunday Times by ST. What I find interesting is that it's not known as a left wing journal. How significant is it for Johnson's future that the Times is criticising him?
It isn't a left wing journal, it's partly an intramural struggle between different parts of the right who are happy to jettison Johnson if it means their survival in power.
And another thing. Why do so many people call him "Boris", as though he's a mate?
Branding, and the fact that working as a columnist leads to a certain type of journalist thinking of him as a friend.
You need to recognise the difference between something needing a source and a comment. I made a comment specifically on one statement . Did you really expect me to give full details of the 2019 general election results ?
No. What I expected was you to acknowledge that as two people pointed out, the post you quoted requesting evidence for the claim it made actually supplied evidence.
That has absolutely nothing to do with your political convictions, it's a matter of basic respect for other posters. Either you didn't read the post you quoted properly, or you chose to disingenuously pretend it didn't say what it said. Worse still, you're now doubling down instead of conceding the point.
I don't care whether you're a Corbynite or bow down to an idol of Boris every morning, if you can't master basic forum etiquette for discussion you deserve all the Hell calls you get until you can learn it.
You expect me to have respect for other posters when I am continually abused by them ?
So, you admit that the Labour manifesto statements about returning some public services back into public ownership (which was also in the manifesto of the Greens, at least) was not a significant factor in the 2019 result. And, hence your statement
What is your evidence that the public favours nationalisation? Would it be a 80 seat majority for the Conservatives ?
is complete bollocks as the public support for public ownership of public services is uncorrelated with the 80 seat Tory majority.
You have no evidence that the public favours Labours policies. By the way, Corbyn was rejected because his Brexit policy was incompetent. He was incompetent
No not true. His policy was not popular, that is not the same as incompetent. His position lay across the general view. I voted for it. In the end it was not needed as the result of the 2019 election was clear, but until then it was not.
Please prove his incompetence. With a couple of decent exceptions privatisation of public services has not exactly been a success. We were promised better services and cheaper prices. Neither has happened really. Why is bringing public services under public control bad? You are just assuming that is the case.
So, you admit that the Labour manifesto statements about returning some public services back into public ownership (which was also in the manifesto of the Greens, at least) was not a significant factor in the 2019 result. And, hence your statement
What is your evidence that the public favours nationalisation? Would it be a 80 seat majority for the Conservatives ?
is complete bollocks as the public support for public ownership of public services is uncorrelated with the 80 seat Tory majority.
You have no evidence that the public favours Labours policies. By the way, Corbyn was rejected because his Brexit policy was incompetent. He was incompetent
No not true. His policy was not popular, that is not the same as incompetent. His position lay across the general view. I voted for it. In the end it was not needed as the result of the 2019 election was clear, but until then it was not.
Please prove his incompetence. With a couple of decent exceptions privatisation of public services has not exactly been a success. We were promised better services and cheaper prices. Neither has happened really. Why is bringing public services under public control bad? You are just assuming that is the case.
He was incompetent because he came up with a brexit policy which was not popular. To win an election you need policies that the people are going to vote for. He also told the usual election lies that the Conservatives were about to sell off the NHS. The voters did not believe the lie.
So, you admit that the Labour manifesto statements about returning some public services back into public ownership (which was also in the manifesto of the Greens, at least) was not a significant factor in the 2019 result. And, hence your statement
What is your evidence that the public favours nationalisation? Would it be a 80 seat majority for the Conservatives ?
is complete bollocks as the public support for public ownership of public services is uncorrelated with the 80 seat Tory majority.
You have no evidence that the public favours Labours policies. By the way, Corbyn was rejected because his Brexit policy was incompetent. He was incompetent
No not true. His policy was not popular, that is not the same as incompetent. His position lay across the general view. I voted for it. In the end it was not needed as the result of the 2019 election was clear, but until then it was not.
Please prove his incompetence. With a couple of decent exceptions privatisation of public services has not exactly been a success. We were promised better services and cheaper prices. Neither has happened really. Why is bringing public services under public control bad? You are just assuming that is the case.
It's hard to argue for his competence or incompetence as a PM, as IIRC he never held even a minor ministerial post. There is almost nothing in his work history - he did have a couple of jobs, which would give no fair basis for assessing his ability one way or the other. After that, he was a backbench MP for many years.
What I think you can argue is that he did not run a good campaign. He tried to sit on the fence about Brexit and that pleased neither side. Many of the policies he propounded would not have appealed to the vital middle class and middle ground voters he needed to win over. Think how many in that group would have been worried by his inheritance tax proposals for example. At this distance, he sounded to be someone who had been on the side for his political life and at last had a chance to pout forward what he had been mulling over for years. But that does not mean that he would have been a bad PM. We will never know.
So, you admit that the Labour manifesto statements about returning some public services back into public ownership (which was also in the manifesto of the Greens, at least) was not a significant factor in the 2019 result. And, hence your statement
What is your evidence that the public favours nationalisation? Would it be a 80 seat majority for the Conservatives ?
is complete bollocks as the public support for public ownership of public services is uncorrelated with the 80 seat Tory majority.
You have no evidence that the public favours Labours policies. By the way, Corbyn was rejected because his Brexit policy was incompetent. He was incompetent
No not true. His policy was not popular, that is not the same as incompetent. His position lay across the general view. I voted for it. In the end it was not needed as the result of the 2019 election was clear, but until then it was not.
Please prove his incompetence. With a couple of decent exceptions privatisation of public services has not exactly been a success. We were promised better services and cheaper prices. Neither has happened really. Why is bringing public services under public control bad? You are just assuming that is the case.
It's hard to argue for his competence or incompetence as a PM, as IIRC he never held even a minor ministerial post. There is almost nothing in his work history - he did have a couple of jobs, which would give no fair basis for assessing his ability one way or the other. After that, he was a backbench MP for many years.
What I think you can argue is that he did not run a good campaign. He tried to sit on the fence about Brexit and that pleased neither side. Many of the policies he propounded would not have appealed to the vital middle class and middle ground voters he needed to win over. Think how many in that group would have been worried by his inheritance tax proposals for example. At this distance, he sounded to be someone who had been on the side for his political life and at last had a chance to pout forward what he had been mulling over for years. But that does not mean that he would have been a bad PM. We will never know.
You expect me to have respect for other posters when I am continually abused by them ?
Has it occurred to you that you might actually be being abused for failing to interact more meaningfully? If you demand evidence for assertions by quoting posts that actually provide evidence for those assertions, it's not much wonder people see your posting as disruptive.
You expect me to have respect for other posters when I am continually abused by them ?
Has it occurred to you that you might actually be being abused for failing to interact more meaningfully? If you demand evidence for assertions by quoting posts that actually provide evidence for those assertions, it's not much wonder people see your posting as disruptive.
You seriously think that a failure to interact more meaningfully, is a justifiable reason for abuse ?
Your Hell call is essentially because you can't be bothered to acknowledge what other posters say, which is a basic minimum to be treated with respect around here. If you don't acknowledge other posters' content, repeatadly, interaction is impossible, your contributions will be deemed disruptive, and you'll attract Hellish attention.
So, you admit that the Labour manifesto statements about returning some public services back into public ownership (which was also in the manifesto of the Greens, at least) was not a significant factor in the 2019 result. And, hence your statement
What is your evidence that the public favours nationalisation? Would it be a 80 seat majority for the Conservatives ?
is complete bollocks as the public support for public ownership of public services is uncorrelated with the 80 seat Tory majority.
You have no evidence that the public favours Labours policies. By the way, Corbyn was rejected because his Brexit policy was incompetent. He was incompetent
No not true. His policy was not popular, that is not the same as incompetent. His position lay across the general view. I voted for it. In the end it was not needed as the result of the 2019 election was clear, but until then it was not.
Please prove his incompetence. With a couple of decent exceptions privatisation of public services has not exactly been a success. We were promised better services and cheaper prices. Neither has happened really. Why is bringing public services under public control bad? You are just assuming that is the case.
He was incompetent because he came up with a brexit policy which was not popular. To win an election you need policies that the people are going to vote for. He also told the usual election lies that the Conservatives were about to sell off the NHS. The voters did not believe the lie.
So, you're not going to address the issue of returning some public services into public ownership being a popular policy.
We're now into another subject, one that might be closer to the topic of this thread. So, why do you think it is that people rejected the policies of Labour under Corbyn, including perfectly defensible summaries of progressive privatisation of the NHS under Tory governments likely to indicate further steps in that direction. Yet, the public were much more willing to swallow massive fabrications by Johnson? There are plenty of examples, of these lies: £350m per week for the NHS, immigration being a problem, austerity being a good policy, "the economy safe in Conservative hands", the proposed deal for leaving the EU would be good for the UK (indeed, leaving the EU being good for the UK), that the 2016 opinion poll gave a mandate for the UK leaving the EU .....
So, you admit that the Labour manifesto statements about returning some public services back into public ownership (which was also in the manifesto of the Greens, at least) was not a significant factor in the 2019 result. And, hence your statement
What is your evidence that the public favours nationalisation? Would it be a 80 seat majority for the Conservatives ?
is complete bollocks as the public support for public ownership of public services is uncorrelated with the 80 seat Tory majority.
You have no evidence that the public favours Labours policies. By the way, Corbyn was rejected because his Brexit policy was incompetent. He was incompetent
No not true. His policy was not popular, that is not the same as incompetent. His position lay across the general view. I voted for it. In the end it was not needed as the result of the 2019 election was clear, but until then it was not.
Please prove his incompetence. With a couple of decent exceptions privatisation of public services has not exactly been a success. We were promised better services and cheaper prices. Neither has happened really. Why is bringing public services under public control bad? You are just assuming that is the case.
He was incompetent because he came up with a brexit policy which was not popular. To win an election you need policies that the people are going to vote for. He also told the usual election lies that the Conservatives were about to sell off the NHS. The voters did not believe the lie.
So, you're not going to address the issue of returning some public services into public ownership being a popular policy.
We're now into another subject, one that might be closer to the topic of this thread. So, why do you think it is that people rejected the policies of Labour under Corbyn, including perfectly defensible summaries of progressive privatisation of the NHS under Tory governments likely to indicate further steps in that direction. Yet, the public were much more willing to swallow massive fabrications by Johnson? There are plenty of examples, of these lies: £350m per week for the NHS, immigration being a problem, austerity being a good policy, "the economy safe in Conservative hands", the proposed deal for leaving the EU would be good for the UK (indeed, leaving the EU being good for the UK), that the 2016 opinion poll gave a mandate for the UK leaving the EU .....
To begin with, in 2016 it was a referendum with a massive response, not an opinion poll.
You would think that with the government making many mistakes and nine and half years of austerity, the Labour party would have easily won in 2019. I don't think that the people were against nationalisation. I suspect that they didn't think it was a priority. He wanted to tax the rich more when his priority should have been to collect the maximum amount of tax that people wanted to pay without resorted to avoidance schemes
Corbyn did have a problem with Brexit. He was happy with the concept of us leaving the EU and remaining in the Custom Union etc but he had to contend with millions of 'Remainers' who just wanted us to remain. A soft Brexit was not good enough for them. He proposed renogotiation and then another referendum but declined to say he would support the result of the renegotiation. He put himself between a rock and a hard place and ended up upsetting Labour 'Leavers'. I reckon that qualifies as incompetence.
His other main problem was himself. The public did not like him.
Can we get back to Johnson, and ignore @Telford for a bit?
I put my soothsayers hat on yesterday and predicted that Johnson will be gone in six weeks. The article in the Sunday Times, Gove's not exactly endorsing Johnson's record regarding Cobra meetings are two reasons I have to think that the rest of the Conservative party are lining up against him. He's done his job and got them in power with a big majority. He isn't needed any more.
My second reason is his health. I'm sure he is on the road to recovery, but it is going to be slow. It took me months to recover from a bout of flu a few years back, and I wasn't doing a high powered job, or nearly as ill as he's been in the first place. Stepping aside to concentrate on getting better seems like a prudent move. Trying to carry on seems likely to wreck his health and put the UK into an even deeper mess than we're in already.
To begin with, in 2016 it was a referendum with a massive response, not an opinion poll.
I need the killing me emoticon, again. Let's see, shall I bore everyone who takes notice of what people write so you can ignore it? OK, I'll repeat myself (those who know what I'm about to say can just scroll past).
In the UK we have a constitution (such as it is) largely based on precedent and convention. On that basis, a referendum would pose a question along the lines of "the policy of the government, as outlined in manifesto at the last election and supported by the people on that occasion, is .... do you support this?". In 2016 when was leaving the EU put in the Conservative manifesto? How had the government under Cameron translated the words in the manifesto into a workable policy? What discussion of the policy had taken place within Parliament and more widely in the public sphere? It wasn't there - the 2015 Tory manifesto policy was to remain in the EU (albeit somewhat negative towards some aspects of EU membership, which would be consistent with a "reform from inside" policy), the Cameron government never decided to put forward a policy to leave the EU (which would be contrary to their manifesto) and the democratic processes of public engagement and Parliamentary scrutiny were obviously not applied (because there was no policy to apply democratic processes to). The 2016 vote was conducted without a question, therefore it wasn't a referendum but a vote to gain the general opinion of the UK public. To move from there to a defined policy would have taken the government several years of translating that general opinion into something that could be put to Parliament, and given that 2016 provided a general opinion it would have needed that policy (after approval by Parliament) to have been put to the people to determine whether or not it matched what the people wanted when they narrowly voted in favour of the general concept of leaving the EU. With a following wind, including everyone proposing leaving the EU rapidly agreeing on a fairly narrow range of options for leaving, we might just about be in a position to put that back to the people about now - except, of course, we'd also have a GE in a couple of weeks and none of that would happen in the current pandemic conditions.
The summary. The 2016 vote was a load of crock that should have no position in providing support for any particular version of Leave. Calling it an opinion poll gives it a level of relevance for policy that it probably doesn't deserve.
Can we get back to Johnson, and ignore @Telford for a bit?
I put my soothsayers hat on yesterday and predicted that Johnson will be gone in six weeks. The article in the Sunday Times, Gove's not exactly endorsing Johnson's record regarding Cobra meetings are two reasons I have to think that the rest of the Conservative party are lining up against him. He's done his job and got them in power with a big majority. He isn't needed any more.
My second reason is his health. I'm sure he is on the road to recovery, but it is going to be slow. It took me months to recover from a bout of flu a few years back, and I wasn't doing a high powered job, or nearly as ill as he's been in the first place. Stepping aside to concentrate on getting better seems like a prudent move. Trying to carry on seems likely to wreck his health and put the UK into an even deeper mess than we're in already.
I don't think that the people were against nationalisation. I suspect that they didn't think it was a priority.
Thanks.
If you’d just posted that clarification earlier, then you’d have saved everyone a lot of silly bother. I think you’re probably right that it wasn’t a priority for people.
Of course it would have been less confrontational and pithy than your hugely ironic ‘vanity project’ post and your subsequent ignoring of any requests for you to own what you said, but hey ho. Nice backtracking from your original hyperbole.
Can we get back to Johnson, and ignore @Telford for a bit?
I put my soothsayers hat on yesterday and predicted that Johnson will be gone in six weeks. The article in the Sunday Times, Gove's not exactly endorsing Johnson's record regarding Cobra meetings are two reasons I have to think that the rest of the Conservative party are lining up against him. He's done his job and got them in power with a big majority. He isn't needed any more.
My second reason is his health. I'm sure he is on the road to recovery, but it is going to be slow. It took me months to recover from a bout of flu a few years back, and I wasn't doing a high powered job, or nearly as ill as he's been in the first place. Stepping aside to concentrate on getting better seems like a prudent move. Trying to carry on seems likely to wreck his health and put the UK into an even deeper mess than we're in already.
O thanks be to God that we've moved away from that egregious New Town!
Yes, I suspect you may be right, and that Johnson has not long to go as PM. He will, if that is the case, be able to concentrate on regaining his health, and spending time (as someone remarked earlier) with his families.
And today's award for astounding patience goes to @Alan cresswell I am loving the irony of a Shropshire Town complaining that he's being bullied by an eponymous Hell thread that he doesn't want to participate in (fine) but then goes to incredible lengths to make this thread about him...
Anyway, as @Sarasa pointed out this particular thread is about a particular narcissist.
I am not convinced that Johnson will leave. Nevertheless @Sarasa is correct that Johnson has fulfilled his purpose as far as the Tory party is concerned. It shows just how craven the party has become that a large number of MPs knew he was terminally unsuitable to be PM - having a record of abject failure in the executive roles he had previously held - but voted for him anyway because they believed - correctly, as it turned out - that he would win them an election.
I find it impossible not to have contempt for such a party.
To begin with, in 2016 it was a referendum with a massive response, not an opinion poll.
I need the killing me emoticon, again. Let's see, shall I bore everyone who takes notice of what people write so you can ignore it? OK, I'll repeat myself (those who know what I'm about to say can just scroll past).
In the UK we have a constitution (such as it is) largely based on precedent and convention. On that basis, a referendum would pose a question along the lines of "the policy of the government, as outlined in manifesto at the last election and supported by the people on that occasion, is .... do you support this?". In 2016 when was leaving the EU put in the Conservative manifesto? How had the government under Cameron translated the words in the manifesto into a workable policy? What discussion of the policy had taken place within Parliament and more widely in the public sphere? It wasn't there - the 2015 Tory manifesto policy was to remain in the EU (albeit somewhat negative towards some aspects of EU membership, which would be consistent with a "reform from inside" policy), the Cameron government never decided to put forward a policy to leave the EU (which would be contrary to their manifesto) and the democratic processes of public engagement and Parliamentary scrutiny were obviously not applied (because there was no policy to apply democratic processes to). The 2016 vote was conducted without a question, therefore it wasn't a referendum but a vote to gain the general opinion of the UK public. To move from there to a defined policy would have taken the government several years of translating that general opinion into something that could be put to Parliament, and given that 2016 provided a general opinion it would have needed that policy (after approval by Parliament) to have been put to the people to determine whether or not it matched what the people wanted when they narrowly voted in favour of the general concept of leaving the EU. With a following wind, including everyone proposing leaving the EU rapidly agreeing on a fairly narrow range of options for leaving, we might just about be in a position to put that back to the people about now - except, of course, we'd also have a GE in a couple of weeks and none of that would happen in the current pandemic conditions.
The summary. The 2016 vote was a load of crock that should have no position in providing support for any particular version of Leave. Calling it an opinion poll gives it a level of relevance for policy that it probably doesn't deserve.
It was a referendum approved by Parliament. The Leave side won by 4% so it was not a narow victory. Parliament voted by a massive majority to vote to trigger article 50. You are one of those people who have never accepted the referendum result but it has never required your approval.
Comments
The Unspeakable Gove has confirmed that BoJo missed FIVE emergency 'Cobra' meetings, presumably before he (BoJo) fell ill, so I wonder if the scraping sound I can hear is that of the Sharpening of Knives, Backs for the Stabbing of?
And enquiring minds would like to know what BoJo found so much more important than the said meetings...
I think he knows a Russian who might lend him some cash!
That has absolutely nothing to do with your political convictions, it's a matter of basic respect for other posters. Either you didn't read the post you quoted properly, or you chose to disingenuously pretend it didn't say what it said. Worse still, you're now doubling down instead of conceding the point.
I don't care whether you're a Corbynite or bow down to an idol of Boris every morning, if you can't master basic forum etiquette for discussion you deserve all the Hell calls you get until you can learn it.
Do you by any chance mean Uncle Vlad, the well-known Puppetmaster?
But the worst outcome would surely be Boris quitting, as he would forever be labelled a martyr, and the lost king over the water.
I suspect BoJo, so the IRS can't study his bank accounts and tax returns.
Nah, Pob always keeps his knife sharp.
Government (of) National Unity. Like what fought WW2. Mostly these days it's a pipe dream of those who think they can return to the Glorious Centrist Past by mashing together the liberal tories and the Labour right. You'd think that idea would have died with the Tiggers' election prospects but apparently not.
Presumably you mean Sunday Times by ST. What I find interesting is that it's not known as a left wing journal. How significant is it for Johnson's future that the Times is criticising him?
And another thing. Why do so many people call him "Boris", as though he's a mate? Politicians normally get called by their surnames. I didn't fall for "Call me Dave" when Cameron used it, and I had more time for him than I do for the current Prime Minister.
You have no evidence that the public favours Labours policies. By the way, Corbyn was rejected because his Brexit policy was incompetent. He was incompetent
It isn't a left wing journal, it's partly an intramural struggle between different parts of the right who are happy to jettison Johnson if it means their survival in power.
Branding, and the fact that working as a columnist leads to a certain type of journalist thinking of him as a friend.
You expect me to have respect for other posters when I am continually abused by them ?
No not true. His policy was not popular, that is not the same as incompetent. His position lay across the general view. I voted for it. In the end it was not needed as the result of the 2019 election was clear, but until then it was not.
Please prove his incompetence. With a couple of decent exceptions privatisation of public services has not exactly been a success. We were promised better services and cheaper prices. Neither has happened really. Why is bringing public services under public control bad? You are just assuming that is the case.
It's hard to argue for his competence or incompetence as a PM, as IIRC he never held even a minor ministerial post. There is almost nothing in his work history - he did have a couple of jobs, which would give no fair basis for assessing his ability one way or the other. After that, he was a backbench MP for many years.
What I think you can argue is that he did not run a good campaign. He tried to sit on the fence about Brexit and that pleased neither side. Many of the policies he propounded would not have appealed to the vital middle class and middle ground voters he needed to win over. Think how many in that group would have been worried by his inheritance tax proposals for example. At this distance, he sounded to be someone who had been on the side for his political life and at last had a chance to pout forward what he had been mulling over for years. But that does not mean that he would have been a bad PM. We will never know.
Good posting.
You seriously think that a failure to interact more meaningfully, is a justifiable reason for abuse ?
LC got to the heart of it on your dedicated thread here, which you clearly read but didn't mark, learn or inwardly digest:
"It's mostly tone. When you come off as the know-it-all to end all, it puts people off."
We're now into another subject, one that might be closer to the topic of this thread. So, why do you think it is that people rejected the policies of Labour under Corbyn, including perfectly defensible summaries of progressive privatisation of the NHS under Tory governments likely to indicate further steps in that direction. Yet, the public were much more willing to swallow massive fabrications by Johnson? There are plenty of examples, of these lies: £350m per week for the NHS, immigration being a problem, austerity being a good policy, "the economy safe in Conservative hands", the proposed deal for leaving the EU would be good for the UK (indeed, leaving the EU being good for the UK), that the 2016 opinion poll gave a mandate for the UK leaving the EU .....
You have contradicted yourself.
To begin with, in 2016 it was a referendum with a massive response, not an opinion poll.
You would think that with the government making many mistakes and nine and half years of austerity, the Labour party would have easily won in 2019. I don't think that the people were against nationalisation. I suspect that they didn't think it was a priority. He wanted to tax the rich more when his priority should have been to collect the maximum amount of tax that people wanted to pay without resorted to avoidance schemes
Corbyn did have a problem with Brexit. He was happy with the concept of us leaving the EU and remaining in the Custom Union etc but he had to contend with millions of 'Remainers' who just wanted us to remain. A soft Brexit was not good enough for them. He proposed renogotiation and then another referendum but declined to say he would support the result of the renegotiation. He put himself between a rock and a hard place and ended up upsetting Labour 'Leavers'. I reckon that qualifies as incompetence.
His other main problem was himself. The public did not like him.
I have read your last post on this nasty little thread you refer to and I don't agree with any of it.
I put my soothsayers hat on yesterday and predicted that Johnson will be gone in six weeks. The article in the Sunday Times, Gove's not exactly endorsing Johnson's record regarding Cobra meetings are two reasons I have to think that the rest of the Conservative party are lining up against him. He's done his job and got them in power with a big majority. He isn't needed any more.
My second reason is his health. I'm sure he is on the road to recovery, but it is going to be slow. It took me months to recover from a bout of flu a few years back, and I wasn't doing a high powered job, or nearly as ill as he's been in the first place. Stepping aside to concentrate on getting better seems like a prudent move. Trying to carry on seems likely to wreck his health and put the UK into an even deeper mess than we're in already.
In the UK we have a constitution (such as it is) largely based on precedent and convention. On that basis, a referendum would pose a question along the lines of "the policy of the government, as outlined in manifesto at the last election and supported by the people on that occasion, is .... do you support this?". In 2016 when was leaving the EU put in the Conservative manifesto? How had the government under Cameron translated the words in the manifesto into a workable policy? What discussion of the policy had taken place within Parliament and more widely in the public sphere? It wasn't there - the 2015 Tory manifesto policy was to remain in the EU (albeit somewhat negative towards some aspects of EU membership, which would be consistent with a "reform from inside" policy), the Cameron government never decided to put forward a policy to leave the EU (which would be contrary to their manifesto) and the democratic processes of public engagement and Parliamentary scrutiny were obviously not applied (because there was no policy to apply democratic processes to). The 2016 vote was conducted without a question, therefore it wasn't a referendum but a vote to gain the general opinion of the UK public. To move from there to a defined policy would have taken the government several years of translating that general opinion into something that could be put to Parliament, and given that 2016 provided a general opinion it would have needed that policy (after approval by Parliament) to have been put to the people to determine whether or not it matched what the people wanted when they narrowly voted in favour of the general concept of leaving the EU. With a following wind, including everyone proposing leaving the EU rapidly agreeing on a fairly narrow range of options for leaving, we might just about be in a position to put that back to the people about now - except, of course, we'd also have a GE in a couple of weeks and none of that would happen in the current pandemic conditions.
The summary. The 2016 vote was a load of crock that should have no position in providing support for any particular version of Leave. Calling it an opinion poll gives it a level of relevance for policy that it probably doesn't deserve.
I soothed the same thing earlier - https://tinyurl.com/ybj3zron
Thanks.
If you’d just posted that clarification earlier, then you’d have saved everyone a lot of silly bother. I think you’re probably right that it wasn’t a priority for people.
Of course it would have been less confrontational and pithy than your hugely ironic ‘vanity project’ post and your subsequent ignoring of any requests for you to own what you said, but hey ho. Nice backtracking from your original hyperbole.
O thanks be to God that we've moved away from that egregious New Town!
Yes, I suspect you may be right, and that Johnson has not long to go as PM. He will, if that is the case, be able to concentrate on regaining his health, and spending time (as someone remarked earlier) with his families.
I wonder who will succeed him?
Anyway, as @Sarasa pointed out this particular thread is about a particular narcissist.
I am not convinced that Johnson will leave. Nevertheless @Sarasa is correct that Johnson has fulfilled his purpose as far as the Tory party is concerned. It shows just how craven the party has become that a large number of MPs knew he was terminally unsuitable to be PM - having a record of abject failure in the executive roles he had previously held - but voted for him anyway because they believed - correctly, as it turned out - that he would win them an election.
I find it impossible not to have contempt for such a party.
AFZ
It was a referendum approved by Parliament. The Leave side won by 4% so it was not a narow victory. Parliament voted by a massive majority to vote to trigger article 50. You are one of those people who have never accepted the referendum result but it has never required your approval.
I could ask The Town how 4% can be considered 'not narow', but it's not worth the bother.
Is it possible @Telford is actually Boris Johnson?
I had the same thought...
https://english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/iron-bridge/
What, BTW, is this thing called a 'garden bridge' of which you speak? I don't think we have one in this country...
Really?
Are you sure?
I'm reasonably certain that we (the British taxpayer) spent several millions pounds acquiring one...
Just as we spend a lot of £££ on a Prime Minister, which commodity I think we're also lacking at the moment...