But then he should say so, He speaks as though everyone who reads the article/interview will have a thorough grasp of British political history of the last two centuries.
I’ve only looked at the BBC news report of the interview. So I don’t know what else he said (if anything). And, looking again, I see that the report is effectively a trailer for the interview, with the podcast being released today and the programme broadcast tomorrow.
Oh well, let's hope that he gives specifics - or that the interviewer and editor don't cut them out. It was an unfortunate news report the way it is written.
I might give that programme a miss then. Istm that there is a time for speaking and a time for not speaking. And right now the ABC has got those moments distinctly skewed.
I wonder what the Archbishop regards as morality, where politicians are concerned? Is he holding out the 19th century as the epitome of the golden age of political endeavour and high moral rectitude of the politicians therein? Or is he arguing that modern standards of 'morality' are too high for any kind of a politician?
That must be why we have such shining examples of probity, conscientiousness and solid family and community values from the occupier of No. 10 Downing Street.
I have no problem with the idea of forgiveness, so long as it's not an excuse for doing nothing about what needs to be fixed. And I wonder to what standard of morality the Archbishop holds his clergy, before he decides that not only forgiveness but maybe some accountability must also be considered. Are there many clergy who could exercise their ministries as Johnson operates his Government and expect to remain in office, uncensured and free to continue?
Breaking news: Dominic Cummings, after denying anonymous briefings that he was responsible for leaking Johnson's text messages, has described Johnson as "mad and totally unethical".
Various remarks offer themselves, such as, if he's only just noticed maybe he really did need his eyes tested.
Breaking news: Dominic Cummings, after denying anonymous briefings that he was responsible for leaking Johnson's text messages, has described Johnson as "mad and totally unethical".
Various remarks offer themselves, such as, if he's only just noticed maybe he really did need his eyes tested.
I will laugh long and hard if we end up having Cummings to thank for Johnson's downfall.
The ABC speaks for very few people these days, given the way the C of E is rapidly vanishing.
Perhaps a time of silence on his part would be more seemly - until such time as voices need to be heard in support of justice for the poor...
I am very confused by this.
In the past Welby has been very strong on justice for the poor. When Tory austerity caused the explosion in foodbank need, he spoke up against the injustices. I tried to find the link a while back but he was very good on this point. Critics reluctantly acknowledged that the churches were vital in providing / hosting / supporting foodbanks but said the Bishops should stay out of the politics.
Welby's reply was that it was of course the church's job to help those in need but also there comes a point when if you are constantly helping people out of the river, you need to go upstream and find out why so many are falling in...
Conversely, on Brexit a couple of years ago and again this, he seems to be too close to the government. Which with this corrupt bunch is particularly worrying.
The ABC speaks for very few people these days, given the way the C of E is rapidly vanishing.
Perhaps a time of silence on his part would be more seemly - until such time as voices need to be heard in support of justice for the poor...
I am very confused by this.
In the past Welby has been very strong on justice for the poor. When Tory austerity caused the explosion in foodbank need, he spoke up against the injustices. I tried to find the link a while back but he was very good on this point. Critics reluctantly acknowledged that the churches were vital in providing / hosting / supporting foodbanks but said the Bishops should stay out of the politics.
Welby's reply was that it was of course the church's job to help those in need but also there comes a point when if you are constantly helping people out of the river, you need to go upstream and find out why so many are falling in...
Conversely, on Brexit a couple of years ago and again this, he seems to be too close to the government. Which with this corrupt bunch is particularly worrying.
As I said, I'm confused...
AFZ
He's a tory of the old-school paternalist kind. He's up for having the state help people avoid destitution but is more than happy to keep the existing system otherwise intact. Hence being willing to move against predatory lenders while keeping a lot quieter about why folk working full time are ending up needing to borrow in the first place. To extend the analogy, he's willing to ask who pushed them in the water but not why they were so close to the bank/ why the bank was so treacherous under foot.
Johnson is not doing well in the news this morning: there are the widespread headlines that Dominic Cummings has turned on him as "mad and totally unethical", followed by Dominic Grieve on BBC R4's Today (link to Twitter):
Sir Dominic Grieve, former Conservative Attorney General says “Boris Johnson is a vacuum of integrity” running “a cronyistic cabal” and “chaotic government” for “self-enrichment”. #r4today
Not that we want Johnson continue in a position of leadership and continuing to use it to line his pockets, but I'm concerned that this has more than a whiff of a campaign orchestrated by Gove as his bid for leadership. And I am unconvinced Gove is any better.
It's election time. What better time to hit out at a politician? Have all those people going to the polls/filling in postal ballots do so with a massive stench of Conservative Corruption in their nostrils and see how many of them vote for someone else.
I’m surprised Cummings hasn’t got more on Johnson than this. Maybe he’s playing with him?
The implication of his blog post is that he has a lot of material, is refusing to leak it to the media (so far), but is offering it up to a select committee should there be any kind of inquiry:
The ABC speaks for very few people these days, given the way the C of E is rapidly vanishing.
Perhaps a time of silence on his part would be more seemly - until such time as voices need to be heard in support of justice for the poor...
I am very confused by this.
In the past Welby has been very strong on justice for the poor. When Tory austerity caused the explosion in foodbank need, he spoke up against the injustices. I tried to find the link a while back but he was very good on this point. Critics reluctantly acknowledged that the churches were vital in providing / hosting / supporting foodbanks but said the Bishops should stay out of the politics.
Welby's reply was that it was of course the church's job to help those in need but also there comes a point when if you are constantly helping people out of the river, you need to go upstream and find out why so many are falling in...
Conversely, on Brexit a couple of years ago and again this, he seems to be too close to the government. Which with this corrupt bunch is particularly worrying.
As I said, I'm confused...
AFZ
Yes, the ABC does send out/has been sending out rather mixed messages...
In all fairness, he does indeed appear sometimes to speak out for the poor, but I think @Arethosemyfeet may be right.
I assume @Enoch was making the point that the blog post bore the clear marks of legal advice.
No. If I had meant that I would have said it.
I was simply drawing attention to the difference between this post which is factual and fairly easy to understand and the sort of high-flown drivelling gobbledygook he usually produced when he was trying to make a case that he was nimbler and had a deeper understanding of political management etc. than us mere mortals.
I assume @Enoch was making the point that the blog post bore the clear marks of legal advice.
No. If I had meant that I would have said it.
Apologies, given your background, that was what I thought you were implying.
In any case, he is now threatening to write a follow-up, it remains to be seen whether this is as clear as his post, or whether it's another 50K screed with detours to attack various civil servants that he personally doesn't like.
The Times article also contains this nugget:
According to friends, Cummings “went nuclear” because of fears No 10 was attempting to blame him for the leaks, leaving him exposed to a potential police investigation.
Most likely he wrote the others while rushed due to being at the centre of No 10, while this one with more potential consequences and he ran it past someone calm and wise, maybe his wife or a trusted friend.
People who voted for de Pfeffel won’t care. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
People, like me, who can’t stand the man or his policies, will shrug and say there’s bound to be far worse than this in his closet but what difference will it make? Even if he’s removed there are equally bad people (and worse) lining up behind him.
People who voted for de Pfeffel won’t care. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
People, like me, who can’t stand the man or his policies, will shrug and say there’s bound to be far worse than this in his closet but what difference will it make? Even if he’s removed there are equally bad people (and worse) lining up behind him.
🤷♀️
You do realise the comma after "people", makes it sound like you're saying only people like you are actually people?
People who voted for de Pfeffel won’t care. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
People, like me, who can’t stand the man or his policies, will shrug and say there’s bound to be far worse than this in his closet but what difference will it make? Even if he’s removed there are equally bad people (and worse) lining up behind him.
🤷♀️
You do realise the comma after "people", makes it sound like you're saying only people like you are actually people?
Not when she just referred to his voters as people two sentences earlier.
People who voted for de Pfeffel won’t care. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
People, like me, who can’t stand the man or his policies, will shrug and say there’s bound to be far worse than this in his closet but what difference will it make? Even if he’s removed there are equally bad people (and worse) lining up behind him.
🤷♀️
You do realise the comma after "people", makes it sound like you're saying only people like you are actually people?
Meanwhile, another story that seems to have broken overnight.
This contains a strong hint that Johnson gave at least a nod and a wink to at least one of the teams involved that he and the government would be happy with the proposed Super League, only to change his mind when he realised what the general reaction was when the story came out.
A lovely quote, that Boris plus bird thought their flat was a "John Lewis nightmare", hence redecoration. Some people would be glad of that. Aspirational, eh?
Comments
Will anything come of it, such as his resignation? Don't hold your breath...
He identifies more with his fellow old Etonians than he does with people who have integrity.
“We have raised our standards” ?
Goodness, really? Where was the level before - under the ground?
He’ll be defending trump next!
Lloyd-George sold peerages, as I recall. Maybe that's what he has in mind?
A time of silent contemplation could be helpful
Perhaps a time of silence on his part would be more seemly - until such time as voices need to be heard in support of justice for the poor...
That seems to imply that he speaks for the CofE in any meaningful sense.
So it does - oops...
That must be why we have such shining examples of probity, conscientiousness and solid family and community values from the occupier of No. 10 Downing Street.
I have no problem with the idea of forgiveness, so long as it's not an excuse for doing nothing about what needs to be fixed. And I wonder to what standard of morality the Archbishop holds his clergy, before he decides that not only forgiveness but maybe some accountability must also be considered. Are there many clergy who could exercise their ministries as Johnson operates his Government and expect to remain in office, uncensured and free to continue?
Various remarks offer themselves, such as, if he's only just noticed maybe he really did need his eyes tested.
I will laugh long and hard if we end up having Cummings to thank for Johnson's downfall.
I am very confused by this.
In the past Welby has been very strong on justice for the poor. When Tory austerity caused the explosion in foodbank need, he spoke up against the injustices. I tried to find the link a while back but he was very good on this point. Critics reluctantly acknowledged that the churches were vital in providing / hosting / supporting foodbanks but said the Bishops should stay out of the politics.
Welby's reply was that it was of course the church's job to help those in need but also there comes a point when if you are constantly helping people out of the river, you need to go upstream and find out why so many are falling in...
Conversely, on Brexit a couple of years ago and again this, he seems to be too close to the government. Which with this corrupt bunch is particularly worrying.
As I said, I'm confused...
AFZ
He's a tory of the old-school paternalist kind. He's up for having the state help people avoid destitution but is more than happy to keep the existing system otherwise intact. Hence being willing to move against predatory lenders while keeping a lot quieter about why folk working full time are ending up needing to borrow in the first place. To extend the analogy, he's willing to ask who pushed them in the water but not why they were so close to the bank/ why the bank was so treacherous under foot.
Not that we want Johnson continue in a position of leadership and continuing to use it to line his pockets, but I'm concerned that this has more than a whiff of a campaign orchestrated by Gove as his bid for leadership. And I am unconvinced Gove is any better.
I wonder why he waited? I predicted he’d do this the moment he was sacked.
Integrity?
The implication of his blog post is that he has a lot of material, is refusing to leak it to the media (so far), but is offering it up to a select committee should there be any kind of inquiry:
https://dominiccummings.com/2021/04/23/statement-regarding-no10-claims-today/
I've seen several journalists characterise this as 'The prime minister did something illegal/unethical but I refuse to tell the public what it was"
What might stir up a bit of interest is news of Consequences
Yes, the ABC does send out/has been sending out rather mixed messages...
In all fairness, he does indeed appear sometimes to speak out for the poor, but I think @Arethosemyfeet may be right.
First, unlike Mr Cummings's usual random musings on government, Brexit, breaking the mould etc., this one is clear and easy to follow.
Second, it appears to be his first post for 16 months.
Think on't.
I was simply drawing attention to the difference between this post which is factual and fairly easy to understand and the sort of high-flown drivelling gobbledygook he usually produced when he was trying to make a case that he was nimbler and had a deeper understanding of political management etc. than us mere mortals.
Apologies, given your background, that was what I thought you were implying.
In any case, he is now threatening to write a follow-up, it remains to be seen whether this is as clear as his post, or whether it's another 50K screed with detours to attack various civil servants that he personally doesn't like.
The Times article also contains this nugget:
Or maybe this is the one he did write.
Well they were not totally comprehensible, bumbled around and in the end made little sense so you never know
People, like me, who can’t stand the man or his policies, will shrug and say there’s bound to be far worse than this in his closet but what difference will it make? Even if he’s removed there are equally bad people (and worse) lining up behind him.
🤷♀️
You do realise the comma after "people", makes it sound like you're saying only people like you are actually people?
Then we'll get rid of them too. It might be the Augean stables, but just because there's a lot of shit doesn't mean that shovelling is a futile task.
Not when she just referred to his voters as people two sentences earlier.
(Cartoon)
This contains a strong hint that Johnson gave at least a nod and a wink to at least one of the teams involved that he and the government would be happy with the proposed Super League, only to change his mind when he realised what the general reaction was when the story came out.
People who voted for de Pfeffel won’t care. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
Therein lies the tragedy - almost Greek in its intensity and irony - of this sad little *Global Britain* shitheap.
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/25/observer-view-on-boris-johnson-fitness-for-office