So he blocked useful and competent people (Labour or Tory) from getting the Mayor of London job twice. Even Zak Goldsmith, anti-Muslim and entitled posh bloke though he is, would probably not have left the capital with the garden bridge that isn't and the Emirates Airline.
So really Mayor of London twice is a negative achievement from any point of view other than Johnson's ambition.
Likewise, say what you like about Theresa May and I'm happy to say a lot, she could hardly have handled the pandemic worse than Johnson. At the very least I can't see her catching the thing by shaking the hands of people who had it. So again, negative achievement on the part of Johnson.
One of the things about saying Johnson saved Britain from Corbyn: if Corbyn was so obviously terrible how is it that only Johnson could save us? Surely if Corbyn would have been quite that bad any Conservative politician worth their salt could have seen him off? So either it's not an achievement because anyone could have done it, or it's not an achievement because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad. Of course it could be that there were no serious Conservative leadership contenders worth their salt.
You were doing well till you said " because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad."
But Dafyd did not affirm "Corbym would not have been so bad". He stated that there are two possibilities, neither of which paint Boris' achievement particularly impressive - either it wasn't particularly difficult, or Corbyn wasn't so terrible.
Please try to read for comprehension. I can't always follow Dafyd's arguments; I'm a computer engineer, not a philosopher, but the logic of this one is utterly straightforward
I can’t easily step away from the ‘Christian’ thing, but ISTM from any point of view that having twice promised faithfulness, and more than twice broken that promise, Johnson is not someone who is trustworthy.
It’s one thing to say, ‘I’m sorry, this relationship is at an end’ and then to start another relationship. It’s a different kettle of fish when your announcement that the relationship is over takes the form of starting out on another one.
So either it's not an achievement because anyone could have done it, or it's not an achievement because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad.
You were doing well till you said " because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad."
Well, anyone right-wing or who has been believing too much right-wing press would say that. (As it happens not much of a fan of Corbyn or Abbott. McDonnell appears to be able to operate outside the activist-left comfort zone. But the bar they have to clear isn't better than Jacinda Ardern or Angela Merkel. It's just better than Johnson.) And as Karl says, you appear not to understand the word 'either'.
So you're going with any Conservative leadership contender of any merit could have beaten Corbyn. It doesn't say much for the Conservative Party if Johnson was the best they can do.
How is that relevant? Having 3 wives/girl-friends is normal today.
Actually, I don't think it is - at least, not in the sense of having children with each of them. I'd think having children with three different people is out of the norm, even for "today". It's not unheard of, of course, but I don't think it can be said to be "normal".
And, I assume, Boris counts himsellf a Christian, or at least 'C of E', but no doubt some shipmate will correct me if I am wrong.
Johnson was confirmed in the C of E, but isn't much of a practicing Christian. I think it's clear he views Christianity as part of the cultural fabric of the country; I don't know whether he would regard himself as a Christian or not.
How is that relevant? Having 3 wives/girl-friends is normal today.
I think it's the not being clear how many bit.
I think it's partly that, and partly the fact that he obviously doesn't play a particularly large role in their life if it isn't even clear how many kids he did have (and that his sixth kid is acknowledged is only because her mother took him to court). It's the behaviour of a 'feckless father' that would be condemned were he at the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum.
So he blocked useful and competent people (Labour or Tory) from getting the Mayor of London job twice. Even Zak Goldsmith, anti-Muslim and entitled posh bloke though he is, would probably not have left the capital with the garden bridge that isn't and the Emirates Airline.
So really Mayor of London twice is a negative achievement from any point of view other than Johnson's ambition.
Likewise, say what you like about Theresa May and I'm happy to say a lot, she could hardly have handled the pandemic worse than Johnson. At the very least I can't see her catching the thing by shaking the hands of people who had it. So again, negative achievement on the part of Johnson.
One of the things about saying Johnson saved Britain from Corbyn: if Corbyn was so obviously terrible how is it that only Johnson could save us? Surely if Corbyn would have been quite that bad any Conservative politician worth their salt could have seen him off? So either it's not an achievement because anyone could have done it, or it's not an achievement because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad. Of course it could be that there were no serious Conservative leadership contenders worth their salt.
You were doing well till you said " because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad."
Given that the impetus to do something 'different' and 'bold' on the pandemic have come from with the governments own camp it is a reasonable inference that any other government which had simply followed the advice from civil servants and scientific advisors would have done better.
I don't think that nationalising the Virus would have cut the mustard
So either it's not an achievement because anyone could have done it, or it's not an achievement because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad.
You were doing well till you said " because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad."
Well, anyone right-wing or who has been believing too much right-wing press would say that. (As it happens not much of a fan of Corbyn or Abbott. McDonnell appears to be able to operate outside the activist-left comfort zone. But the bar they have to clear isn't better than Jacinda Ardern or Angela Merkel. It's just better than Johnson.) And as Karl says, you appear not to understand the word 'either'.
So you're going with any Conservative leadership contender of any merit could have beaten Corbyn. It doesn't say much for the Conservative Party if Johnson was the best they can do.
I did not want Johnson to be Conservative Leader and I did not vote Conservative in the last election. I am not a fan of Johnson.
So he blocked useful and competent people (Labour or Tory) from getting the Mayor of London job twice. Even Zak Goldsmith, anti-Muslim and entitled posh bloke though he is, would probably not have left the capital with the garden bridge that isn't and the Emirates Airline.
So really Mayor of London twice is a negative achievement from any point of view other than Johnson's ambition.
Likewise, say what you like about Theresa May and I'm happy to say a lot, she could hardly have handled the pandemic worse than Johnson. At the very least I can't see her catching the thing by shaking the hands of people who had it. So again, negative achievement on the part of Johnson.
One of the things about saying Johnson saved Britain from Corbyn: if Corbyn was so obviously terrible how is it that only Johnson could save us? Surely if Corbyn would have been quite that bad any Conservative politician worth their salt could have seen him off? So either it's not an achievement because anyone could have done it, or it's not an achievement because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad. Of course it could be that there were no serious Conservative leadership contenders worth their salt.
You were doing well till you said " because actually Corbyn would not have been so bad."
Given that the impetus to do something 'different' and 'bold' on the pandemic have come from with the governments own camp it is a reasonable inference that any other government which had simply followed the advice from civil servants and scientific advisors would have done better.
I don't think that nationalising the Virus would have cut the mustard
How is that relevant? Having 3 wives/girl-friends is normal today.
I think it's the not being clear how many bit.
I think it's partly that, and partly the fact that he obviously doesn't play a particularly large role in their life if it isn't even clear how many kids he did have (and that his sixth kid is acknowledged is only because her mother took him to court). It's the behaviour of a 'feckless father' that would be condemned were he at the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum.
I wonder how many fatherless kids claim in the playground that their real dad is the PM - though I suppose it's not something to boast about; I wouldn't.
How is that relevant? Having 3 wives/girl-friends is normal today.
Is it? We obviously live in different worlds. How much real care, the sort a parent ought to give, does/can he give to those children not living with him?
And thanks chrisstiles, he's even worse than I'd thought.
I don't see how he manages to attract women who must know by now how unreliable a partner he is. It's bad biology for starters. (It's an advantage for males to sow wild oats, but females need to select a partner which will be around to support offspring.) He doesn't look like the human equivalent of the peacock with the best tail.
But what do I know? I am the result of being too picky and not pretending to be thick.
I don't see how he manages to attract women who must know by now how unreliable a partner he is. It's bad biology for starters. (It's an advantage for males to sow wild oats, but females need to select a partner which will be around to support offspring.) He doesn't look like the human equivalent of the peacock with the best tail.
But what do I know? I am the result of being too picky and not pretending to be thick.
How is that relevant? Having 3 wives/girl-friends is normal today.
Actually, I don't think it is - at least, not in the sense of having children with each of them. I'd think having children with three different people is out of the norm, even for "today". It's not unheard of, of course, but I don't think it can be said to be "normal".
There are many women in this fair nation who have had kids with two or three different men. It's hardly a shock to think that the men would have run up similar numbers.
How is that relevant? Having 3 wives/girl-friends is normal today.
Actually, I don't think it is - at least, not in the sense of having children with each of them. I'd think having children with three different people is out of the norm, even for "today". It's not unheard of, of course, but I don't think it can be said to be "normal".
There are many women in this fair nation who have had kids with two or three different men. It's hardly a shock to think that the men would have run up similar numbers.
Not so much that, but if I count correctly, at least 2 were fathered at a time he was committed to someone else.
Frankly, I think our Great Leader is in fact an appalling disgrace to himself, the people he lies to, and the country as a whole. The sooner his pasty face and scarecrow hair are no longer seen on our screens, or newspapers, the better.
I don't see how he manages to attract women who must know by now how unreliable a partner he is. It's bad biology for starters. (It's an advantage for males to sow wild oats, but females need to select a partner which will be around to support offspring.) He doesn't look like the human equivalent of the peacock with the best tail.
But what do I know? I am the result of being too picky and not pretending to be thick.
As others have said, money, power, upper class raffish charm, and by the way, some people seek unreliable partners for manifold reasons.
An interesting thought, although I'm open to enlightenment as to what those manifold reasons might be!
Meanwhile, I await the arrival on this thread of the usual group of toadies and lickspittles, explaining to we poor heathen how our Great Leader's abysmal and dysfunctional personal life is an Example To Us All.
How is that relevant? Having 3 wives/girl-friends is normal today.
Actually, I don't think it is - at least, not in the sense of having children with each of them. I'd think having children with three different people is out of the norm, even for "today". It's not unheard of, of course, but I don't think it can be said to be "normal".
There are many women in this fair nation who have had kids with two or three different men. It's hardly a shock to think that the men would have run up similar numbers.
What gets my goat is that men of Boris's ilk usually harshly judge women who have children with several different men. Boris himself has written some very rude things about single mothers. He's a screaming hypocrite.
Someone who thinks he is an alpha male, and hasn't caught up with current thinking about the use of the term with regard to other species, which suggests that alpha isn't as superior as he thinks.
Gives me the creeps.
No. TBH how it is managed doesn’t bother me. The thing that bothers me is the serial practice of starting up a relationship with another woman when he is still ostensibly committed to her predecessor.
No. TBH how it is managed doesn’t bother me. The thing that bothers me is the serial practice of starting up a relationship with another woman when he is still ostensibly committed to her predecessor.
I think it's called 'adultery', and is condemned by many religions.
Well, yeah, but we're not talking about preferring port or ale here, we're talking about people apparently preferring a pint of warmed piss.
(I think in the previous version of my comment I unfairly maligned a particular chain of pubs. There are plenty of worse establishments, all making money selling warm piss by the bucketload.)
Are we really debating how he manages to find women to mate with?
Surprise surprise, not everyone has the same desires.
True - which is why so many people find our Great Leader, and his sexual activities, repugnant.
This would imply we ought to find Theresa May's sexual activities wholesome. Call me weird, but I'd rather not have an opinion in either case.
@yohan300,
1. As far as I'm aware, none of us know anything about Mrs May's sexual activities, or have any reason to suppose that she is anything other than faithful to her husband. And
2. With Mr de Pfeffel Johnson it isn't so much the thought of that flabby body squashing various unfortunate female torsos beneath its writhings, distasteful though that might be to the imagination. It's what the history of his relationships appears to indicate about his attitude towards faithfulness, honesty and responsibility, in all, not just his sexual, activities. It's also, in the age of Me Too, what this demonstrates about how he views women.
I don't think there's ever been any allegation that any of his liaisons have been anything but consensual. Given that he's had ... quite a few ... it would be reasonable to have expect something to have come out by now. Whatever faults we can lay at his door, that isn't one of them.
Are we really debating how he manages to find women to mate with?
Surprise surprise, not everyone has the same desires.
True - which is why so many people find our Great Leader, and his sexual activities, repugnant.
This would imply we ought to find Theresa May's sexual activities wholesome. Call me weird, but I'd rather not have an opinion in either case.
@yohan300,
1. As far as I'm aware, none of us know anything about Mrs May's sexual activities, or have any reason to suppose that she is anything other than faithful to her husband. And
2. With Mr de Pfeffel Johnson it isn't so much the thought of that flabby body squashing various unfortunate female torsos beneath its writhings, distasteful though that might be to the imagination. It's what the history of his relationships appears to indicate about his attitude towards faithfulness, honesty and responsibility, in all, not just his sexual, activities. It's also, in the age of Me Too, what this demonstrates about how he views women.
I don't think there's ever been any allegation that any of his liaisons have been anything but consensual. Given that he's had ... quite a few ... it would be reasonable to have expect something to have come out by now. Whatever faults we can lay at his door, that isn't one of them.
His apparent view of women doesn't involve non-consensual acts, which is a distinct improvement on some public figures. But, there's still an element of when things start to get difficult or just the excitement fades that it's time to trade his current partner in for a younger model. Which appears to be that he sees relationships as existing just for his pleasure and convenience, not something that is worth working on through hard times. If applied to other areas of life this could suggest a reluctance to work through something difficult or to labour at something, and a propensity to dodge difficulties. Which aren't characteristics of someone you'd want to lead a nation through difficult times - be that self inflicted Brexit or an unexpected virus.
I don't think there's ever been any allegation that any of his liaisons have been anything but consensual. Given that he's had ... quite a few ... it would be reasonable to have expect something to have come out by now. Whatever faults we can lay at his door, that isn't one of them.
His apparent view of women doesn't involve non-consensual acts, which is a distinct improvement on some public figures. But, there's still an element of when things start to get difficult or just the excitement fades that it's time to trade his current partner in for a younger model. Which appears to be that he sees relationships as existing just for his pleasure and convenience, not something that is worth working on through hard times. If applied to other areas of life this could suggest a reluctance to work through something difficult or to labour at something, and a propensity to dodge difficulties. Which aren't characteristics of someone you'd want to lead a nation through difficult times - be that self inflicted Brexit or an unexpected virus.
Many fine upstanding politicians and other laudable figures in public life have "interesting" private lives. Of course they could all be execrable rogues whose contributions to society should be viewed with nothing but distrust. What's probably more likely is that they have a variety of personality types, insecurities and other aspects of themselves that aren't conducive to marriage at 25, 2.4 kids and a diamond wedding anniversary. Judging such people by their private lives means you'll be throwing lots of babies out with the bathwater.
While you might prefer not to do business with a used car salesman after discovering he's a divorcee, I think most people would prefer to make that decision based on, for example, how much he lied on the phone about the condition of the car they've come to view, and how much he offers for their part exchange.
I don't think there's ever been any allegation that any of his liaisons have been anything but consensual. Given that he's had ... quite a few ... it would be reasonable to have expect something to have come out by now. Whatever faults we can lay at his door, that isn't one of them.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
It’s not the sex per se which most troubles me, nor the multiple partners, but the pattern of deceitful behaviour by him - more than once starting a relationship with someone when ostensibly he is already/still committed to someone else, and parent of her child(ren).
Character matters. Integrity matters. Trustworthiness matters. In public and private life.
Relationships can break down and the reason have little or nothing 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.
Comments
But Dafyd did not affirm "Corbym would not have been so bad". He stated that there are two possibilities, neither of which paint Boris' achievement particularly impressive - either it wasn't particularly difficult, or Corbyn wasn't so terrible.
Please try to read for comprehension. I can't always follow Dafyd's arguments; I'm a computer engineer, not a philosopher, but the logic of this one is utterly straightforward
I think it's the not being clear how many bit.
It’s one thing to say, ‘I’m sorry, this relationship is at an end’ and then to start another relationship. It’s a different kettle of fish when your announcement that the relationship is over takes the form of starting out on another one.
So you're going with any Conservative leadership contender of any merit could have beaten Corbyn. It doesn't say much for the Conservative Party if Johnson was the best they can do.
Actually, I don't think it is - at least, not in the sense of having children with each of them. I'd think having children with three different people is out of the norm, even for "today". It's not unheard of, of course, but I don't think it can be said to be "normal".
Johnson was confirmed in the C of E, but isn't much of a practicing Christian. I think it's clear he views Christianity as part of the cultural fabric of the country; I don't know whether he would regard himself as a Christian or not.
I think it's partly that, and partly the fact that he obviously doesn't play a particularly large role in their life if it isn't even clear how many kids he did have (and that his sixth kid is acknowledged is only because her mother took him to court). It's the behaviour of a 'feckless father' that would be condemned were he at the opposite end of the socio-economic spectrum.
I don't think that nationalising the Virus would have cut the mustard
I did not want Johnson to be Conservative Leader and I did not vote Conservative in the last election. I am not a fan of Johnson.
Acting like the majority of other governments in Europe would have yielded better results than pretending to wear one's underpants on the outside of ones trouser's.
I wonder how many fatherless kids claim in the playground that their real dad is the PM - though I suppose it's not something to boast about; I wouldn't.
Is it? We obviously live in different worlds. How much real care, the sort a parent ought to give, does/can he give to those children not living with him?
And thanks chrisstiles, he's even worse than I'd thought.
But what do I know? I am the result of being too picky and not pretending to be thick.
Comes over as an alpha male?
There are many women in this fair nation who have had kids with two or three different men. It's hardly a shock to think that the men would have run up similar numbers.
Our Great Leader is simply proving that he is a Man of the People, and an outstanding example of True-Blue-English™ masculinity.
Not so much that, but if I count correctly, at least 2 were fathered at a time he was committed to someone else.
Frankly, I think our Great Leader is in fact an appalling disgrace to himself, the people he lies to, and the country as a whole. The sooner his pasty face and scarecrow hair are no longer seen on our screens, or newspapers, the better.
As others have said, money, power, upper class raffish charm, and by the way, some people seek unreliable partners for manifold reasons.
Meanwhile, I await the arrival on this thread of the usual group of toadies and lickspittles, explaining to we poor heathen how our Great Leader's abysmal and dysfunctional personal life is an Example To Us All.
What gets my goat is that men of Boris's ilk usually harshly judge women who have children with several different men. Boris himself has written some very rude things about single mothers. He's a screaming hypocrite.
Gives me the creeps.
Surprise surprise, not everyone has the same desires.
True - which is why so many people find our Great Leader, and his sexual activities, repugnant.
I think it's called 'adultery', and is condemned by many religions.
This would imply we ought to find Theresa May's sexual activities wholesome. Call me weird, but I'd rather not have an opinion in either case.
Well, yeah, but we're not talking about preferring port or ale here, we're talking about people apparently preferring a pint of warmed piss.
(I think in the previous version of my comment I unfairly maligned a particular chain of pubs. There are plenty of worse establishments, all making money selling warm piss by the bucketload.)
Ma! Ma! Where's my Pa?
Gone to Downing St ha, ha, ha.
1. As far as I'm aware, none of us know anything about Mrs May's sexual activities, or have any reason to suppose that she is anything other than faithful to her husband. And
2. With Mr de Pfeffel Johnson it isn't so much the thought of that flabby body squashing various unfortunate female torsos beneath its writhings, distasteful though that might be to the imagination. It's what the history of his relationships appears to indicate about his attitude towards faithfulness, honesty and responsibility, in all, not just his sexual, activities. It's also, in the age of Me Too, what this demonstrates about how he views women.
Exactly, particularly paragraph 2.
Many fine upstanding politicians and other laudable figures in public life have "interesting" private lives. Of course they could all be execrable rogues whose contributions to society should be viewed with nothing but distrust. What's probably more likely is that they have a variety of personality types, insecurities and other aspects of themselves that aren't conducive to marriage at 25, 2.4 kids and a diamond wedding anniversary. Judging such people by their private lives means you'll be throwing lots of babies out with the bathwater.
While you might prefer not to do business with a used car salesman after discovering he's a divorcee, I think most people would prefer to make that decision based on, for example, how much he lied on the phone about the condition of the car they've come to view, and how much he offers for their part exchange.
Apart from the allegations by Charlotte Edwardes.
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.
What does "reflect" mean? Would you say the same about John Kennedy?
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?
Relationships can break down and the reason have little or nothing 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.