On the other hand, as this article over on Conservative Home suggests, there's very little sign of any movement against the government - and absent that Johnson can screw up ad nauseam and there won't be any lasting consequences.
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'm sure he'll come back and mooch around for a bit before going on extended paternity leave. Got to keep that extra £75, 000 salary uplift in place!
On the other hand, as this article over on Conservative Home suggests, there's very little sign of any movement against the government - and absent that Johnson can screw up ad nauseam and there won't be any lasting consequences.
The odd thing about that article is that all the claims about Johnson that it dismisses are, I believe, true.
On the other hand, as this article over on Conservative Home suggests, there's very little sign of any movement against the government - and absent that Johnson can screw up ad nauseam and there won't be any lasting consequences.
The odd thing about that article is that all the claims about Johnson that it dismisses are, I believe, true.
Yes, I read it as saying the truth doesn't matter.
On the other hand, as this article over on Conservative Home suggests, there's very little sign of any movement against the government - and absent that Johnson can screw up ad nauseam and there won't be any lasting consequences.
The odd thing about that article is that all the claims about Johnson that it dismisses are, I believe, true.
Yes, I read it as saying the truth doesn't matter.
Aren't we talking about Conservatives? When was the last time senior Conservatives thought that truth mattered?
You expect me to have respect for other posters when I am continually abused by them ?
[Hostly winged helmet ON:] Why, yes. I might also note that, if you abide by the Commandments and respect other posters, you are far less likely to be abused by them. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. [/Hostly winged helmet OFF]
You expect me to have respect for other posters when I am continually abused by them ?
[Hostly winged helmet ON:] Why, yes. I might also note that, if you abide by the Commandments and respect other posters, you are far less likely to be abused by them. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. [/Hostly winged helmet OFF]
I do respect other posters but it is very rarely returned in kind. My problem is that I tend to say things that others don't agree with.
I do respect other posters but it is very rarely returned in kind. My problem is that I tend to say things that others don't agree with.
[Hostly winged helmet ON:] I have seen very little evidence of that; to judge by the posts of my colleagues, they've seen even less. Try expressing your respect, and thinking two (or three, or four) times before saying things, and see where it gets you. [/Hostly winged helmet OFF]
I am going away for some time in the hope that when I return this site is a nicer place towards strangers. Feel free to respons but I will not be replying
I am going away for some time in the hope that when I return this site is a nicer place towards strangers. Feel free to respons but I will not be replying
I am going away for some time in the hope that when I return this site is a nicer place towards strangers. Feel free to respons but I will not be replying
[Hostly winged helmet ON:] Suit yourself. I hope that, when you return, you will spend a little time soaking up the 10Cs before posting again. It does make a difference. [/Hostly winged helmet OFF]
Getting back to the topic, Johnson could very easily decide to go now. He has made it to PM, probably found out it's a lot more work than he thought and a higher level of thinking than he's shown any comfort with. He has a perfect excuse, can say that he's through the dangerous part but the nature of the virus is that it will take some months at least before he can put in a full day's work again, and that sort of thing. In other words he can go with as much honour as he can ever aspire to.
I am going away for some time in the hope that when I return this site is a nicer place towards strangers. Feel free to respons but I will not be replying
Getting back to the topic, Johnson could very easily decide to go now. He has made it to PM, probably found out it's a lot more work than he thought and a higher level of thinking than he's shown any comfort with. He has a perfect excuse, can say that he's through the dangerous part but the nature of the virus is that it will take some months at least before he can put in a full day's work again, and that sort of thing. In other words he can go with as much honour as he can ever aspire to.
I think that is probably how it is going to pan out. From what I can gather the rest of the Cabinet are lining up to stab each other in the back till the last one standing gets the job. My money is on Gove
Getting back to the topic, Johnson could very easily decide to go now. He has made it to PM, probably found out it's a lot more work than he thought and a higher level of thinking than he's shown any comfort with. He has a perfect excuse, can say that he's through the dangerous part but the nature of the virus is that it will take some months at least before he can put in a full day's work again, and that sort of thing. In other words he can go with as much honour as he can ever aspire to.
I think that is probably how it is going to pan out. From what I can gather the rest of the Cabinet are lining up to stab each other in the back till the last one standing gets the job. My money is on Gove
From what I can gather the rest of the Cabinet are lining up to stab each other in the back till the last one standing gets the job. My money is on Gove
A poisoned chalice.
[/quote] Indeed so. What is surprising is that I can remember times when Gove was offering excellent critiques of art and culture on "Newsnight" and the like. Both my wife and I, while disagreeing with his politics, respected him. But not now!
The Tory Party have been sliding into the arms of the lunatic neo-fascists for several years. I'm afraid that Gove will be too sane and sensible for the party membership. I'd say Priti Patel is in with a good chance, if she can ramp up her racist credentials a bit more.
Getting back to the topic, Johnson could very easily decide to go now. He has made it to PM, probably found out it's a lot more work than he thought and a higher level of thinking than he's shown any comfort with. He has a perfect excuse, can say that he's through the dangerous part but the nature of the virus is that it will take some months at least before he can put in a full day's work again, and that sort of thing. In other words he can go with as much honour as he can ever aspire to.
I think that is probably how it is going to pan out. From what I can gather the rest of the Cabinet are lining up to stab each other in the back till the last one standing gets the job. My money is on Gove
A poisoned chalice.
Then again, Gove is a poison Dwarf.
It's intriguing to me, I see the logic of the argument but I don't quite believe that Johnson will fade away quietly. I am not sure his ego could cope. Even though as has been clear for a while now, Johnson doesn't actually want to be Prime Minister. He wants the prestige and the title and the attention but really doesn't want to do the work nor does he have a vision for where he wants to take the country.
This is one the similarities with Trump who is clearly far too lazy to be president.
Of course, it is possible that his brush with mortality has a profound effect on him. We shall see.
However, if we game this out; much as the end of Johnson's time as PM is an inherent good, if he did step down, it creates specific problems going forward. And not because the various candidates are all terrible - though they are - but because of the problems of a power vacuum at a dangerous time. When May stepped down (or Cameron, Blair or Thatcher) they could step down as party leader and remain PM until the new party leader was elected). If Johnson steps down on health grounds then he cannot really stay PM whilst the party elects a new leader. Thus there would have to be an interim PM. This would probably be Dominic Raab. Now, I don't think Raab is a narcissist but he has demonstrated a complete lack of both insight and competence.
And so at a time of national crisis there is no leadership for a month or two. Moreover Brexit is a major problem. The deadline for agreeing an extension to the transition period is June. That was always insane but even more so now. So the odds of No Deal on 1st January 2021 look ominous. And the idea of a major financial shock following the current one is really fucking stupid if it's avoidable. And it is. But interrupted supply chains... we've just seen what that looks like.
Back in December I commented that there were very good reasons to think that a Johnson administration would not last 5 years. But that was of no comfort to me because the damage would be done in 5 weeks. I meant that he would put us on course to a No Deal Brexit. Which he has. But also in January there was the opportunity to plan a pandemic response...
I do hate being right but the overall point is this; it probably doesn't matter very much whether Johnson stays or goes, the damage is done. It's gonna take a helluva lot of fixing and neither Johnson nor any of his would be replacements show any signs of being interested in beginning the process of fixing any of it.
Which leads me to these two conclusions:
Johnson has sacrificed our country to his ego and our democracy is failing because it has allowed him to do so.
Gove suffers from Dunning-Krueger syndrome in direct proportion to his personal intelligence - and mildly effective policies on the Environment don't really make up for that time he wrote a book about how he was going to be replaced by a Muslim.
And not because the various candidates are all terrible - though they are - but because of the problems of a power vacuum at a dangerous time. When May stepped down (or Cameron, Blair or Thatcher) they could step down as party leader and remain PM until the new party leader was elected). If Johnson steps down on health grounds then he cannot really stay PM whilst the party elects a new leader.
It's a damnable thing that we are in the position of comparing the present power vacuum with a future one and are not really sure which one might be worse.
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.
Branding, certainly - Boris was already Boris when he was doing HIGNFY before he was Mayor of London. And then we had "Boris Bikes" and "Boris Buses". "Boris" is a relatively uncommon given name in the UK - there's only one notable Boris in politics, but multiple Johnsons.
"Boris" is also better for tabloid headline writers than "Johnson" as it's shorter - it's easier to make the headline fit the page, and you can get better alliteration.
It's hardly unprecedented - the late Baroness Thatcher was widely referred to as "Maggie", including by many people who despised her politics. It happens with a lot of people who have a given name that is unique within their particular sphere of operations.
I'll take "Things I Never Expected To Read From Alan" for 500, please.
I think it's simply a marker of just how bad things have got that Gove looks good by comparison. It's a bit like how almost anyone would look like a good childcare option compared to King Herod.
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.
Branding, certainly - Boris was already Boris when he was doing HIGNFY before he was Mayor of London. And then we had "Boris Bikes" and "Boris Buses". "Boris" is a relatively uncommon given name in the UK - there's only one notable Boris in politics, but multiple Johnsons.
"Boris" is also better for tabloid headline writers than "Johnson" as it's shorter - it's easier to make the headline fit the page, and you can get better alliteration.
It's hardly unprecedented - the late Baroness Thatcher was widely referred to as "Maggie", including by many people who despised her politics. It happens with a lot of people who have a given name that is unique within their particular sphere of operations.
This is true upto a point. In Johnson's case it is a conscious choice to brand himself as the cuddly, funny guy. It has successfully hidden (to some) his fascist tendencies and general incompetence.
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.
It was a referendum approved by Parliament. It was also stupid, as Alan points out. Alan has been consistently pointing out that this was a stupid way to run a referendum if the thing that you wanted to know was whether the British Public actually supported leaving the EU since the referendum was first suggested. And he's right - it was a poorly-defined question.
Whether 52-48 is narrow or not depends on what you mean by "narrow". It was a large enough margin that it was not a statistical tie - you could expect to re-run the referendum several times under similar conditions and get the same answer. But that's not usually what people mean by "narrow".
52-48 means that about half the voters voted one way, and about half voted the other way. That's not a clear consensus. It's a real, but narrow, victory. By contrast, the 1975 referendum was a clear consensus - 2/3 of the voters voted in favour. The 2011 alternative vote was defeated by a similar margin.
Getting back to the topic, Johnson could very easily decide to go now. He has made it to PM, probably found out it's a lot more work than he thought and a higher level of thinking than he's shown any comfort with. He has a perfect excuse, can say that he's through the dangerous part but the nature of the virus is that it will take some months at least before he can put in a full day's work again, and that sort of thing. In other words he can go with as much honour as he can ever aspire to.
I think that is probably how it is going to pan out. From what I can gather the rest of the Cabinet are lining up to stab each other in the back till the last one standing gets the job. My money is on Gove
A poisoned chalice.
Then again, Gove is a poison Dwarf.
It's intriguing to me, I see the logic of the argument but I don't quite believe that Johnson will fade away quietly. I am not sure his ego could cope. Even though as has been clear for a while now, Johnson doesn't actually want to be Prime Minister. He wants the prestige and the title and the attention but really doesn't want to do the work nor does he have a vision for where he wants to take the country.
This is one the similarities with Trump who is clearly far too lazy to be president.
Of course, it is possible that his brush with mortality has a profound effect on him. We shall see.
Sorry to disappoint.
Johnson won't go any more than Trump hasn't and won't.
It was clear from early 2017 that having got office, Trump was neither happy nor quite sure what he wanted to do with it. Yet he's both stayed there, and is now running for another 4 years of what must be very unpleasant for him - though not as unpleasant as it has been and will be for everyone else.
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.
It's hardly unprecedented - the late Baroness Thatcher was widely referred to as "Maggie", including by many people who despised her politics. It happens with a lot of people who have a given name that is unique within their particular sphere of operations.
I think that had something to do with her being a woman; certainly our last Prime Minister was more often called "Theresa May" than simply "May". But even the late Baroness was referred to as "Thatcher" regularly, whereas "Johnson" is quite rare. (Unless I succeed in my one man campaign to change the way the nation speaks!)
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.
It was a referendum approved by Parliament. It was also stupid, as Alan points out. Alan has been consistently pointing out that this was a stupid way to run a referendum if the thing that you wanted to know was whether the British Public actually supported leaving the EU since the referendum was first suggested. And he's right - it was a poorly-defined question.
Whether 52-48 is narrow or not depends on what you mean by "narrow". It was a large enough margin that it was not a statistical tie - you could expect to re-run the referendum several times under similar conditions and get the same answer. But that's not usually what people mean by "narrow".
52-48 means that about half the voters voted one way, and about half voted the other way. That's not a clear consensus. It's a real, but narrow, victory. By contrast, the 1975 referendum was a clear consensus - 2/3 of the voters voted in favour. The 2011 alternative vote was defeated by a similar margin.
Let us take the example of an election. In the seat of Upper Upwick, Bloggs gets 28418 votes, while Juggers gets 28417. Multiple recounts confirm that result. Bloggs is the new member. How is that different to the result of the referendum?
The difference is that the election has an actual question - do you want Bloggs or Juggers as your MP (for the moment, assume only two candidates). Both have presented a manifesto of what they would do if elected (it doesn't need to be written down) and the electorate know what each stands for. They may be affiliated with a wider political party, again with a manifesto of what they'll do if enough members are elected for them to have an influence in government.
The 2016 vote did not have the equivalent of a manifesto for Leave ... or, rather it had several different (often incompatible) manifestos. No one knew what a vote for Leave was a vote for, because the question hadn't been framed to define Leave.
On top of that, elections follow a defined process for which there is a large body of precedent and convention - we know the process from many previous elections. There was no precedent for a public vote on something other than approval of what the government wants to do.
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.
It was a referendum approved by Parliament. It was also stupid, as Alan points out. Alan has been consistently pointing out that this was a stupid way to run a referendum if the thing that you wanted to know was whether the British Public actually supported leaving the EU since the referendum was first suggested. And he's right - it was a poorly-defined question.
Whether 52-48 is narrow or not depends on what you mean by "narrow". It was a large enough margin that it was not a statistical tie - you could expect to re-run the referendum several times under similar conditions and get the same answer. But that's not usually what people mean by "narrow".
52-48 means that about half the voters voted one way, and about half voted the other way. That's not a clear consensus. It's a real, but narrow, victory. By contrast, the 1975 referendum was a clear consensus - 2/3 of the voters voted in favour. The 2011 alternative vote was defeated by a similar margin.
Let us take the example of an election. In the seat of Upper Upwick, Bloggs gets 28418 votes, while Juggers gets 28417. Multiple recounts confirm that result. Bloggs is the new member. How is that different to the result of the referendum?
Well, we've twice had the opportunity to replace Bloggs in the years since the referendum. Apparently an opportunity to replace the referendum decision would be undemocratic.
Bloggs, who has the support of a majority on the floor of the House, doesn't see the need.
Alan Cresswell - we've had this discussion in the past. The referendum was about a simple question - do you want to stay in the EEC or not. It did not need to be about the terms of leaving, it was not legislative, it was about this constitutional question,
Don't get me wrong - I consider that those who voted to leave were wrong. It's just that of those who chose to express a wish in the poll, a majority wanted to leave.
Alan Cresswell - we've had this discussion in the past. The referendum was about a simple question - do you want to stay in the EEC or not. It did not need to be about the terms of leaving, it was not legislative, it was about this constitutional question,
Except it wasn't a simple question - it was a very complex question posed in a simplistic manner. I'd agree it wasn't legislative, and therefore Parliament didn't need to pass any and everything on a nod because of the result much less allow the government to rush to write the letter to the EU saying "we're leaving" and start the two year clock. Four years after the vote we still don't actually know what the question was, because we still don't know what future relationship with the EU that the government is seeking, we still don't know what "Brexit" means beyond the nonsensical "Brexit means Brexit" phrase Mrs May came up with.
I accept that the 2015 election result did justify holding a public vote on EU membership. It didn't require the vote we actually had. David Cameron had several options to have done things better:
1. Hold an early vote without defining anything stating that if the vote was in favour of Leave that a cross-party group of Leave-favouring MPs, in consultation with others, would define what sort of future relationship the government should seek with the EU. Which would then need approval by Parliament (and, possibly a confirmatory referendum) before starting the Leave process.
2. Hold an early vote with the government outlining what sort of future relationship the government would seek in the event of a Leave vote. This would be similar to the 2019 Labour manifesto position, define Brexit then campaign against it in the referendum, and likely to get criticism from those who want to Leave because it's not the Brexit they want (which wouldn't be unprecedented - in the 2010 coalition the government called a referendum on reform of the electoral system and then defined the revision to be an alternative system that the LibDems and other groups hadn't called for, and which Parliament had rejected only a few years earlier)
3. Hold a later vote (in, for example 2019) to allow time for those who wanted to Leave the EU to agree on what future relationship with the EU the government should seek if the vote was in favour of Leave. This would be close to the way somewhere like Switzerland would hold a referendum (though, in Switzerland it would still be advisory and the government could decide that the preference of the people is impractical and so not enact it).
There would still be issues of precedence. Option 1 is still unprecedented. Option 2 would only have a precedent for the AV vote, which was itself without precedent. Option 3 would have no UK precedent, but would have similarities to how other countries use the option of a referendum. Late in 2015, after Parliament had approved holding the public vote, I'd been saying that in that situation option 1 was the only way of moving from that point to something viable. I've also several times said that if Cameron had been smart he'd have honoured the manifesto by selecting option 3 - if only because it would have resulted in a bloodbath among different pro-Leave groups fighting over what they wanted and quite possibly insufficient agreement to allow that vote while he was still in office (given that he'd stated an intention to step down before the scheduled 2020 election) or at all.
What we actually had was a totally fucked up farcical undemocratic, unconstitutional and ultimately meaningless exercise. And on those non-existent foundations the government under May and Johnson have built an entire edifice of nation-destroying fascist policies that I'm sure the vast majority of the UK population would have rejected had they known that that was what the Leave option would mean.
Comments
I thought we knew that already...
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/20/boris-johnson-sunday-times-prime-minister-coronavirus
On the other hand, as this article over on Conservative Home suggests, there's very little sign of any movement against the government - and absent that Johnson can screw up ad nauseam and there won't be any lasting consequences.
The odd thing about that article is that all the claims about Johnson that it dismisses are, I believe, true.
How much, or how long, the glow from this largesse lasts remains to be seen.
Yes, I read it as saying the truth doesn't matter.
(Sigh)
Rinse and repeat.
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/274752/#Comment_274752
Off you fuck then.
I think that is probably how it is going to pan out. From what I can gather the rest of the Cabinet are lining up to stab each other in the back till the last one standing gets the job. My money is on Gove
A poisoned chalice.
A poisoned chalice.
[/quote] Indeed so. What is surprising is that I can remember times when Gove was offering excellent critiques of art and culture on "Newsnight" and the like. Both my wife and I, while disagreeing with his politics, respected him. But not now!
Then again, Gove is a poison Dwarf.
It's intriguing to me, I see the logic of the argument but I don't quite believe that Johnson will fade away quietly. I am not sure his ego could cope. Even though as has been clear for a while now, Johnson doesn't actually want to be Prime Minister. He wants the prestige and the title and the attention but really doesn't want to do the work nor does he have a vision for where he wants to take the country.
This is one the similarities with Trump who is clearly far too lazy to be president.
Of course, it is possible that his brush with mortality has a profound effect on him. We shall see.
However, if we game this out; much as the end of Johnson's time as PM is an inherent good, if he did step down, it creates specific problems going forward. And not because the various candidates are all terrible - though they are - but because of the problems of a power vacuum at a dangerous time. When May stepped down (or Cameron, Blair or Thatcher) they could step down as party leader and remain PM until the new party leader was elected). If Johnson steps down on health grounds then he cannot really stay PM whilst the party elects a new leader. Thus there would have to be an interim PM. This would probably be Dominic Raab. Now, I don't think Raab is a narcissist but he has demonstrated a complete lack of both insight and competence.
And so at a time of national crisis there is no leadership for a month or two. Moreover Brexit is a major problem. The deadline for agreeing an extension to the transition period is June. That was always insane but even more so now. So the odds of No Deal on 1st January 2021 look ominous. And the idea of a major financial shock following the current one is really fucking stupid if it's avoidable. And it is. But interrupted supply chains... we've just seen what that looks like.
Back in December I commented that there were very good reasons to think that a Johnson administration would not last 5 years. But that was of no comfort to me because the damage would be done in 5 weeks. I meant that he would put us on course to a No Deal Brexit. Which he has. But also in January there was the opportunity to plan a pandemic response...
I do hate being right but the overall point is this; it probably doesn't matter very much whether Johnson stays or goes, the damage is done. It's gonna take a helluva lot of fixing and neither Johnson nor any of his would be replacements show any signs of being interested in beginning the process of fixing any of it.
Which leads me to these two conclusions:
Johnson has sacrificed our country to his ego and our democracy is failing because it has allowed him to do so.
Fuck.
AFZ
Gove suffers from Dunning-Krueger syndrome in direct proportion to his personal intelligence - and mildly effective policies on the Environment don't really make up for that time he wrote a book about how he was going to be replaced by a Muslim.
It's a damnable thing that we are in the position of comparing the present power vacuum with a future one and are not really sure which one might be worse.
Fair enough. He has a certain gnomic quality that made me think... ok, I withdraw my statement.
Would you believe he's 4 inches taller than Rishi Sunak?
That's hardly fair, given that Rishi's only 12.
Actually I think he has the air of a mongoose or meerkat.
Unaccountably I'm reminded of this twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/garius/status/1062983853260918784
I'll take "Things I Never Expected To Read From Alan" for 500, please.
You might have missed my past comments extolling the virtues of Michael Heseltine.
I noticed the lack of context, BTW, and wondered if Marvin was being ironic.
I think...
Bastard offspring of a stoat and a duck.
Branding, certainly - Boris was already Boris when he was doing HIGNFY before he was Mayor of London. And then we had "Boris Bikes" and "Boris Buses". "Boris" is a relatively uncommon given name in the UK - there's only one notable Boris in politics, but multiple Johnsons.
"Boris" is also better for tabloid headline writers than "Johnson" as it's shorter - it's easier to make the headline fit the page, and you can get better alliteration.
It's hardly unprecedented - the late Baroness Thatcher was widely referred to as "Maggie", including by many people who despised her politics. It happens with a lot of people who have a given name that is unique within their particular sphere of operations.
I think it's simply a marker of just how bad things have got that Gove looks good by comparison. It's a bit like how almost anyone would look like a good childcare option compared to King Herod.
This is true upto a point. In Johnson's case it is a conscious choice to brand himself as the cuddly, funny guy. It has successfully hidden (to some) his fascist tendencies and general incompetence.
AFZ
It was a referendum approved by Parliament. It was also stupid, as Alan points out. Alan has been consistently pointing out that this was a stupid way to run a referendum if the thing that you wanted to know was whether the British Public actually supported leaving the EU since the referendum was first suggested. And he's right - it was a poorly-defined question.
Whether 52-48 is narrow or not depends on what you mean by "narrow". It was a large enough margin that it was not a statistical tie - you could expect to re-run the referendum several times under similar conditions and get the same answer. But that's not usually what people mean by "narrow".
52-48 means that about half the voters voted one way, and about half voted the other way. That's not a clear consensus. It's a real, but narrow, victory. By contrast, the 1975 referendum was a clear consensus - 2/3 of the voters voted in favour. The 2011 alternative vote was defeated by a similar margin.
Johnson won't go any more than Trump hasn't and won't.
It was clear from early 2017 that having got office, Trump was neither happy nor quite sure what he wanted to do with it. Yet he's both stayed there, and is now running for another 4 years of what must be very unpleasant for him - though not as unpleasant as it has been and will be for everyone else.
I think that had something to do with her being a woman; certainly our last Prime Minister was more often called "Theresa May" than simply "May". But even the late Baroness was referred to as "Thatcher" regularly, whereas "Johnson" is quite rare. (Unless I succeed in my one man campaign to change the way the nation speaks!)
Let us take the example of an election. In the seat of Upper Upwick, Bloggs gets 28418 votes, while Juggers gets 28417. Multiple recounts confirm that result. Bloggs is the new member. How is that different to the result of the referendum?
The 2016 vote did not have the equivalent of a manifesto for Leave ... or, rather it had several different (often incompatible) manifestos. No one knew what a vote for Leave was a vote for, because the question hadn't been framed to define Leave.
On top of that, elections follow a defined process for which there is a large body of precedent and convention - we know the process from many previous elections. There was no precedent for a public vote on something other than approval of what the government wants to do.
Well, we've twice had the opportunity to replace Bloggs in the years since the referendum. Apparently an opportunity to replace the referendum decision would be undemocratic.
Alan Cresswell - we've had this discussion in the past. The referendum was about a simple question - do you want to stay in the EEC or not. It did not need to be about the terms of leaving, it was not legislative, it was about this constitutional question,
Don't get me wrong - I consider that those who voted to leave were wrong. It's just that of those who chose to express a wish in the poll, a majority wanted to leave.
I accept that the 2015 election result did justify holding a public vote on EU membership. It didn't require the vote we actually had. David Cameron had several options to have done things better:
1. Hold an early vote without defining anything stating that if the vote was in favour of Leave that a cross-party group of Leave-favouring MPs, in consultation with others, would define what sort of future relationship the government should seek with the EU. Which would then need approval by Parliament (and, possibly a confirmatory referendum) before starting the Leave process.
2. Hold an early vote with the government outlining what sort of future relationship the government would seek in the event of a Leave vote. This would be similar to the 2019 Labour manifesto position, define Brexit then campaign against it in the referendum, and likely to get criticism from those who want to Leave because it's not the Brexit they want (which wouldn't be unprecedented - in the 2010 coalition the government called a referendum on reform of the electoral system and then defined the revision to be an alternative system that the LibDems and other groups hadn't called for, and which Parliament had rejected only a few years earlier)
3. Hold a later vote (in, for example 2019) to allow time for those who wanted to Leave the EU to agree on what future relationship with the EU the government should seek if the vote was in favour of Leave. This would be close to the way somewhere like Switzerland would hold a referendum (though, in Switzerland it would still be advisory and the government could decide that the preference of the people is impractical and so not enact it).
There would still be issues of precedence. Option 1 is still unprecedented. Option 2 would only have a precedent for the AV vote, which was itself without precedent. Option 3 would have no UK precedent, but would have similarities to how other countries use the option of a referendum. Late in 2015, after Parliament had approved holding the public vote, I'd been saying that in that situation option 1 was the only way of moving from that point to something viable. I've also several times said that if Cameron had been smart he'd have honoured the manifesto by selecting option 3 - if only because it would have resulted in a bloodbath among different pro-Leave groups fighting over what they wanted and quite possibly insufficient agreement to allow that vote while he was still in office (given that he'd stated an intention to step down before the scheduled 2020 election) or at all.
What we actually had was a totally fucked up farcical undemocratic, unconstitutional and ultimately meaningless exercise. And on those non-existent foundations the government under May and Johnson have built an entire edifice of nation-destroying fascist policies that I'm sure the vast majority of the UK population would have rejected had they known that that was what the Leave option would mean.