Character matters. Integrity matters. Trustworthiness matters. In public and private life.
Relationships can break down and the reason have noting to do with these three things. Everyone is human and all relationships have ups and downs.
Is the person the same person in public/at work and in private? Maybe not - but Johnson’s record in both areas is pretty unreliable.
He’s not Prime Minister material.
So what's your comment on serial shaggers, John Kennedy and Martin Luther King? I'm not a fan of Johnson, but there's an interesting prediction being made here, which you could call confirmation bias. Didn't Kennedy have sex with interns in his wife's bed? Well, I know he is bitterly criticized today by some, so maybe the rule holds.
We are all fallible and fallen human beings, but most of us have some redeeming features. BJ's record in personal and public life shows a basic irresponsibility, even as a journalist.
As I said, I'm not a fan of Johnson. I'm just curious that some people are offering a predictive relationship between sex and politics. I keep coming back to JFK and MLK, notorious womanizers. Does the prediction not work here, or maybe it does? I suppose for the right wing, yes. JFK betrayer of Jackie, and betrayer of the US. MLK, I don't know how it goes, would you trust him?
I want to say again, it’s not the sex, it’s the repeated infidelity that worries me, along with an apparent lack of remorse. As it happens that also appears to tie in with other things about Johnson - why he lost his newspaper job, and why he lost his ministerial post.
As for JFK, if he were standing for election now, and his health issues and infidelities were known, it would certainly give me pause for thought.
I won’t say a politician’s personal integrity is the sole issue, and if their policies were preferable to their opponent’s, or their leader as PM was preferable to their opponent’s leader then I might have to stifle my doubts and vote for them anyway.
Yes I agree but, IME of Boris as leader his private life does reflect his public life. Half or badly done projects all over the place left for someone else to sort out.
It may happen to reflect it, with hindsight, but it's not a sound basis for passing judgement for the reasons I have given.
Also, pretending that it is a sound basis by which to judge someone's actions in areas outside their personal life can have implications for those around you. For example, there's someone who would make a great chair of your church committee, who unbeknown to you happens to have been divorced twice. They are well aware of your public prognostications on the unsuitably of Johnson for high office due to his personal relationships, and thinking you would apply similar criteria to them, they don't bother applying for the chairmanship.
No it is not an indicator on its own. Taken as part of a full picture it is an indicator. Some politicians have had to resign over their private life
You use all these terms like "reflect" and "indicator", I'm not sure what this means. Are you establishing a kind of prediction, that somebody's sex life predicts their political competence? So Kennedy was a serial shagger, and therefore?
I said as part of the full picture, not on its own. A photo on its own is not evidence, but taken with other evidence it builds a case. There certainly have been ministers (political) here in the UK who have had to resign for their private life. Clandestine sexual meetings on green spaces in London at night for instance.
I’m not fixed on “tie in” I’ll go for “correlate”, “jibe”, “be of a piece”. And I reiterate it’s not about the sex. If he’d shown the same kind of behaviour in business deals it would raise the same doubts.
I’m not fixed on “tie in” I’ll go for “correlate”, “jibe”, “be of a piece”. And I reiterate it’s not about the sex. If he’d shown the same kind of behaviour in business deals it would raise the same doubts.
Yes, that's fair comment. I just think that people are not homogeneous. I mean all the bits don't hang together. Lloyd George did dodgy financial dealings, enjoyed the ladies, and, well, I don't know, some say, one of the foremost 20th century politicians. There is an argument that sexually adventurous people are often creative, daring, etc. Incidentally, he published letters to his mistress, then wife, called My Darling Pussy, than which nothing could be more gallant.
Maybe the Mad God-King over in Trumperica read those letters, and gained some ideas from them?
*ahem*
As regards our Great Leader (elected by The Will Of The People™, or so I am repeatedly told), it is now patently obvious, surely, to anyone with enough active brain cells to qualify as a Pot Plant, that the man is USELESS.
It’s about character, integrity and trustworthiness.
Letting down a partner is wrong, whether in private life, business or politics.
If things are going wrong we need to talk/discuss/negotiate and be open and fair in all our relationships. Everyone messes up from time to time - but we should be able to admit our mistakes, apologise and move on with the intention to do better next time.
It doesn’t matter if we are called Jo Bloggs, JFK, MLK or ABdePJ.
I can see now that John Major 's affair with Edwina Curry presaged our exit from the ERM. A decent, honest man would have stuck at it even it meant crippling interest rates leading to a deeper recession with far more families turfed out of their homes.
On top of what I posted earlier there is the fact that things change. The behaviour we expect changes. Benny Hill would not make it today. The behaviour that Boris is showing is from then.
As I said no it is not about sex but the whole package as it were
On top of what I posted earlier there is the fact that things change. The behaviour we expect changes. Benny Hill would not make it today. The behaviour that Boris is showing is from then.
As I said no it is not about sex but the whole package as it were
So you are saying that being married several times, committing adultery, having multiple kids, is old-fashioned? I thought it was the reverse.
Johnson's character was well known before last years election. It did not make any difference.
We know. Our point is that we think it should have.
Remember that Johnson's character was only measured against Corbyn's. There wasn't a slate of saints to choose from for PM.
Corbyn is a saint compared with Johnson. Corbyn's never been sacked for lying. Corbyn never conspired to have someone beaten up. The worst people have been able to throw at him is that he talked to awful people.
Johnson's character was well known before last years election. It did not make any difference.
We know. Our point is that we think it should have.
Remember that Johnson's character was only measured against Corbyn's. There wasn't a slate of saints to choose from for PM.
Corbyn is a saint compared with Johnson. Corbyn's never been sacked for lying. Corbyn never conspired to have someone beaten up. The worst people have been able to throw at him is that he talked to awful people.
Corbyn is on his third marriage and had an affair with at least one colleague. Or perhaps his personal life is suddenly not so relevant?
Johnson's character was well known before last years election. It did not make any difference.
We know. Our point is that we think it should have.
Remember that Johnson's character was only measured against Corbyn's. There wasn't a slate of saints to choose from for PM.
Corbyn is a saint compared with Johnson. Corbyn's never been sacked for lying. Corbyn never conspired to have someone beaten up. The worst people have been able to throw at him is that he talked to awful people.
Corbyn is on his third marriage and had an affair with at least one colleague. Or perhaps his personal life is suddenly not so relevant?
The difference is, as far as I'm aware, that he didn't start new relationships while still married, and the "affair" to which you refer was after the end of his first marriage. The evidence also points to him being a rather more engaged parent, despite the break up of his first and second marriages.
Johnson's character was well known before last years election. It did not make any difference.
We know. Our point is that we think it should have.
Remember that Johnson's character was only measured against Corbyn's. There wasn't a slate of saints to choose from for PM.
Corbyn is a saint compared with Johnson. Corbyn's never been sacked for lying. Corbyn never conspired to have someone beaten up. The worst people have been able to throw at him is that he talked to awful people.
Corbyn is on his third marriage and had an affair with at least one colleague. Or perhaps his personal life is suddenly not so relevant?
The difference is, as far as I'm aware, that he didn't start new relationships while still married, and the "affair" to which you refer was after the end of his first marriage. The evidence also points to him being a rather more engaged parent, despite the break up of his first and second marriages.
This is true. He had a relationship with a colleague between marriages. Also the story of how he met his now wife is interesting and speaks to his character.
Moreover, if you really think that Johnson because is more honest than Corbyn, then I have a whole city of bridges to sell you.
On top of what I posted earlier there is the fact that things change. The behaviour we expect changes. Benny Hill would not make it today. The behaviour that Boris is showing is from then.
As I said no it is not about sex but the whole package as it were
So you are saying that being married several times, committing adultery, having multiple kids, is old-fashioned? I thought it was the reverse.
Murder is old that doesn’t make any better.
As I keep saying it is part of the whole picture not a reason in itself.
Well I'm glad Corbyn's relationship and marriage history has passed the Ship's worthiness test, although no doubt you're all ecstatic that Starmer has succeeded him, with only one single honest marriage to his name he must surely make for a better Labour Leader and PM. I mean fancy walking out on your wife and kids because you didn't get your way in sending them to a comprehensive school.
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
¹ Apologies to xenophobic assholes for lumping you in the same group as @telford.
Mr Johnson's party got 43.6% of votes cast. (I'm gonna ignore turnout for the moment).
43.6% of votes cast translated to 56% of the seats in Parliament and 100% of the executive.
And for further emphasis, Mr Johnson's party got a greater share of the vote than anyone since Mrs Thatcher in 1979. This is not a new "skew", and Mr Johnson actually had more support than several previous, even more strongly skewed administrations. The only administration since the war that has has majority support was the Cameron/Clegg coalition, and that doesn't seem to have been very popular...
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
Mr Johnson promised to get Brexit done. The voters supported him and he got his mandate. I appreciate that you are not a supporter of Brexit
¹ Apologies to xenophobic assholes for lumping you in the same group as @telford.
Mr Johnson promised to get Brexit done. The voters supported him and he got his mandate.
"The voters" did no such thing. A plurality of voters, true, but fewer than the number supporting parties offering an escape from Brexit. Which highlights nicely the problem of single issues within a multi-party, multi-issue general election as well as the problems of FPTP.
And 'done'? What part of having no agreed trade deal with our principal market (ie Europe) in place, and no evident will to conclude one - or make the necessary preparations for said failure (other than paving over Kent as a lorry park) counts as 'done'?
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
[wanking sounds] mmmmmmandate!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I appreciate that you are not a supporter of Brexit.
I give zero fucks about Brexit. However, my objective understanding of every argument supporting it is fundamentally based on xenophobia. And the comorbid stupidity it nests in. And you personify all of that as passionately as a weasel in rut.
What group am I in?
You occupy a shelf labelled Exhibit Q: proof that RooK does not own this site.
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
[wanking sounds] mmmmmmandate!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I appreciate that you are not a supporter of Brexit.
I give zero fucks about Brexit. However, my objective understanding of every argument supporting it is fundamentally based on xenophobia. And the comorbid stupidity it nests in. And you personify all of that as passionately as a weasel in rut.
What group am I in?
You occupy a shelf labelled Exhibit Q: proof that RooK does not own this site.
Comorbid...I had to look that up. Proof that I must be stupid.
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
[wanking sounds] mmmmmmandate!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I appreciate that you are not a supporter of Brexit.
I give zero fucks about Brexit. However, my objective understanding of every argument supporting it is fundamentally based on xenophobia. And the comorbid stupidity it nests in. And you personify all of that as passionately as a weasel in rut.
What group am I in?
You occupy a shelf labelled Exhibit Q: proof that RooK does not own this site.
Comorbid...I had to look that up. Proof that I must be stupid.
Indeed. Particularly given the word has been in widespread use in the current situation.
The facts are the facts. Boris has proved to be either incompetent or willing to lie to get his way. As some people seem to keep ignoring here. His sex life is not evidence itself but part of a picture. It is also fact that Boris won the election and under our rules is PM and that the remain vote though split was greater than the vote for the conservatives standing on a Brexit tickets. There has also been little actual Brexit prep. It is totally possible that we may crash out.
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
[wanking sounds] mmmmmmandate!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I appreciate that you are not a supporter of Brexit.
I give zero fucks about Brexit. However, my objective understanding of every argument supporting it is fundamentally based on xenophobia. And the comorbid stupidity it nests in. And you personify all of that as passionately as a weasel in rut.
What group am I in?
You occupy a shelf labelled Exhibit Q: proof that RooK does not own this site.
Comorbid...I had to look that up. Proof that I must be stupid.
Indeed. Particularly given the word has been in widespread use in the current situation.
I can't be doing with such words. Give me plain english every time
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
[wanking sounds] mmmmmmandate!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I appreciate that you are not a supporter of Brexit.
I give zero fucks about Brexit. However, my objective understanding of every argument supporting it is fundamentally based on xenophobia. And the comorbid stupidity it nests in. And you personify all of that as passionately as a weasel in rut.
What group am I in?
You occupy a shelf labelled Exhibit Q: proof that RooK does not own this site.
Comorbid...I had to look that up. Proof that I must be stupid.
Indeed. Particularly given the word has been in widespread use in the current situation.
I can't be doing with such words. Give me plain english every time
It’s a medical term. Many illnesses have other comorbid conditions.
In medicine, comorbidity is the presence of one or more additional conditions often co-occurring (that is, concomitant or concurrent with) with a primary condition.
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
[wanking sounds] mmmmmmandate!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I appreciate that you are not a supporter of Brexit.
I give zero fucks about Brexit. However, my objective understanding of every argument supporting it is fundamentally based on xenophobia. And the comorbid stupidity it nests in. And you personify all of that as passionately as a weasel in rut.
What group am I in?
You occupy a shelf labelled Exhibit Q: proof that RooK does not own this site.
Comorbid...I had to look that up. Proof that I must be stupid.
Indeed. Particularly given the word has been in widespread use in the current situation.
I can't be doing with such words. Give me plain english every time
It'll perhaps surprise you to learn that we do not know the contents of your personal lexicon, which I imagine is entirely coterminous with your definition of "plain English".
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
[wanking sounds] mmmmmmandate!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I appreciate that you are not a supporter of Brexit.
I give zero fucks about Brexit. However, my objective understanding of every argument supporting it is fundamentally based on xenophobia. And the comorbid stupidity it nests in. And you personify all of that as passionately as a weasel in rut.
What group am I in?
You occupy a shelf labelled Exhibit Q: proof that RooK does not own this site.
Comorbid...I had to look that up. Proof that I must be stupid.
Indeed. Particularly given the word has been in widespread use in the current situation.
I can't be doing with such words. Give me plain english every time
For the record, from the Governments own statistics:
Children in poverty in 2009/10 515k, in 2018/19 588k. An increase of 73,000 (cf: Mr Johnson "400,000 fewer children in poverty than there were in 2010" and "there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty and 500,000 fewer children falling below thresholds of low income and material deprivation".)
Individuals in poverty in 2009/10 8.3m, in 2018/19 9.5m. An increase of 800,000 (cf: Mr Johnson "there are hundreds of thousands, I think 400,000, fewer families living in poverty now than there were in 2010" - yes, I know those stats are for individuals and Johnson was talking about families ... but they should be correlated, I can't see how you have 800,000 more people in poverty while at the same time reducing the number of families in poverty)
Comments
So what's your comment on serial shaggers, John Kennedy and Martin Luther King? I'm not a fan of Johnson, but there's an interesting prediction being made here, which you could call confirmation bias. Didn't Kennedy have sex with interns in his wife's bed? Well, I know he is bitterly criticized today by some, so maybe the rule holds.
A nice exciting fresh venture that calls for his skills.
Far far away.
THAT I could be mindful to pray for
That said, I would want to pay more attention to the policies a candidate for office proposes or supports.
The trust issue kicks in, though - does he/she really mean this, or are they just saying it to get my vote?
I want to say again, it’s not the sex, it’s the repeated infidelity that worries me, along with an apparent lack of remorse. As it happens that also appears to tie in with other things about Johnson - why he lost his newspaper job, and why he lost his ministerial post.
As for JFK, if he were standing for election now, and his health issues and infidelities were known, it would certainly give me pause for thought.
I won’t say a politician’s personal integrity is the sole issue, and if their policies were preferable to their opponent’s, or their leader as PM was preferable to their opponent’s leader then I might have to stifle my doubts and vote for them anyway.
I said as part of the full picture, not on its own. A photo on its own is not evidence, but taken with other evidence it builds a case. There certainly have been ministers (political) here in the UK who have had to resign for their private life. Clandestine sexual meetings on green spaces in London at night for instance.
Premature ejaculation, obviously.
Yes, that's fair comment. I just think that people are not homogeneous. I mean all the bits don't hang together. Lloyd George did dodgy financial dealings, enjoyed the ladies, and, well, I don't know, some say, one of the foremost 20th century politicians. There is an argument that sexually adventurous people are often creative, daring, etc. Incidentally, he published letters to his mistress, then wife, called My Darling Pussy, than which nothing could be more gallant.
Maybe the Mad God-King over in Trumperica read those letters, and gained some ideas from them?
*ahem*
As regards our Great Leader (elected by The Will Of The People™, or so I am repeatedly told), it is now patently obvious, surely, to anyone with enough active brain cells to qualify as a Pot Plant, that the man is USELESS.
It’s about character, integrity and trustworthiness.
Letting down a partner is wrong, whether in private life, business or politics.
If things are going wrong we need to talk/discuss/negotiate and be open and fair in all our relationships. Everyone messes up from time to time - but we should be able to admit our mistakes, apologise and move on with the intention to do better next time.
It doesn’t matter if we are called Jo Bloggs, JFK, MLK or ABdePJ.
As I said no it is not about sex but the whole package as it were
So you are saying that being married several times, committing adultery, having multiple kids, is old-fashioned? I thought it was the reverse.
We know. Our point is that we think it should have.
'Marry one lady today, And marry another tomorrow.'
'Yet all the while I did remain/ A simple lovesick boy.'
I wonder why.
Remember that Johnson's character was only measured against Corbyn's. There wasn't a slate of saints to choose from for PM.
Corbyn is a saint compared with Johnson. Corbyn's never been sacked for lying. Corbyn never conspired to have someone beaten up. The worst people have been able to throw at him is that he talked to awful people.
Corbyn is on his third marriage and had an affair with at least one colleague. Or perhaps his personal life is suddenly not so relevant?
The difference is, as far as I'm aware, that he didn't start new relationships while still married, and the "affair" to which you refer was after the end of his first marriage. The evidence also points to him being a rather more engaged parent, despite the break up of his first and second marriages.
This is true. He had a relationship with a colleague between marriages. Also the story of how he met his now wife is interesting and speaks to his character.
Moreover, if you really think that Johnson because is more honest than Corbyn, then I have a whole city of bridges to sell you.
AFZ
As I keep saying it is part of the whole picture not a reason in itself.
£45m each.
To anyone paying attention, Johnson's incompetence as Prime Minister is no surprise.
My point is that the voters didn't care
And the counter point that you refuse to blink at is that the majority of voters not giving enough of a fuck to counter the urges of Britains xenophobic asshole¹ demographic is not the definition of a mandate.
¹ Apologies to xenophobic assholes for lumping you in the same group as @telford.
I just want to emphasize some issues around mandates here:
Mr Johnson's party got 43.6% of votes cast. (I'm gonna ignore turnout for the moment).
43.6% of votes cast translated to 56% of the seats in Parliament and 100% of the executive.
That's a very skewed system is it not?
AFZ
And for further emphasis, Mr Johnson's party got a greater share of the vote than anyone since Mrs Thatcher in 1979. This is not a new "skew", and Mr Johnson actually had more support than several previous, even more strongly skewed administrations. The only administration since the war that has has majority support was the Cameron/Clegg coalition, and that doesn't seem to have been very popular...
"The voters" did no such thing. A plurality of voters, true, but fewer than the number supporting parties offering an escape from Brexit. Which highlights nicely the problem of single issues within a multi-party, multi-issue general election as well as the problems of FPTP.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I give zero fucks about Brexit. However, my objective understanding of every argument supporting it is fundamentally based on xenophobia. And the comorbid stupidity it nests in. And you personify all of that as passionately as a weasel in rut.
You occupy a shelf labelled Exhibit Q: proof that RooK does not own this site.
Comorbid...I had to look that up. Proof that I must be stupid.
Indeed. Particularly given the word has been in widespread use in the current situation.
I can't be doing with such words. Give me plain english every time
It’s a medical term. Many illnesses have other comorbid conditions.
In medicine, comorbidity is the presence of one or more additional conditions often co-occurring (that is, concomitant or concurrent with) with a primary condition.
It is plain English.
It'll perhaps surprise you to learn that we do not know the contents of your personal lexicon, which I imagine is entirely coterminous with your definition of "plain English".
Ah. Willful ignorance. The hallmark of the right.
For the record, from the Governments own statistics:
Children in poverty in 2009/10 515k, in 2018/19 588k. An increase of 73,000 (cf: Mr Johnson "400,000 fewer children in poverty than there were in 2010" and "there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty and 500,000 fewer children falling below thresholds of low income and material deprivation".)
Individuals in poverty in 2009/10 8.3m, in 2018/19 9.5m. An increase of 800,000 (cf: Mr Johnson "there are hundreds of thousands, I think 400,000, fewer families living in poverty now than there were in 2010" - yes, I know those stats are for individuals and Johnson was talking about families ... but they should be correlated, I can't see how you have 800,000 more people in poverty while at the same time reducing the number of families in poverty)