Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

1102103105107108135

Comments

  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    From Rory Stewart reviewing Bower's biography of Johnson:

    Bower concludes. therefore, that those of us who criticize him - as I am about to do - are narrow-minded, prudish, inadequate, or envious.
    Perhaps it is envy. Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life - perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister. Some of this may have been a natural talent - but a lifetime of practice and study has allowed him to uncover new possibilities which go beyond all the classifications of dishonesty attempted by classical theorists like St Augustine. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation, and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie - which may inadvertently be true.

    I am a big fan of Rory. He was my choice for Conservative leader but I have never been a party member.

    He always seemed like a decent kind of bloke, whatever I saw of him. And intelligent and hard-working.

    Judge him on his voting record, not just his public persona. He's as rotten as most tories.

    You don't get to be Chair of Le Cercle without being very comfortable with further right figures.
  • How many Tories do you know? And what do you mean when you say 'rotten'? I'm not a Tory, by the way, but your judgment seems a bit sweeping.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    How many Tories do you know? And what do you mean when you say 'rotten'? I'm not a Tory, by the way, but your judgment seems a bit sweeping.

    I was using tories to refer to those members of the Conservative and Unionist party who are also Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By rotten I mean voting to further impoverish people struggling to make ends meet, to persecute disabled people, to cut taxes on the wealthy and cut services for those who need them. Ordinary tory voters I can believe are misguided. Tory MPs know exactly what they're doing.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    From Rory Stewart reviewing Bower's biography of Johnson:

    Bower concludes. therefore, that those of us who criticize him - as I am about to do - are narrow-minded, prudish, inadequate, or envious.
    Perhaps it is envy. Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life - perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister. Some of this may have been a natural talent - but a lifetime of practice and study has allowed him to uncover new possibilities which go beyond all the classifications of dishonesty attempted by classical theorists like St Augustine. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation, and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie - which may inadvertently be true.

    I am a big fan of Rory. He was my choice for Conservative leader but I have never been a party member.

    He always seemed like a decent kind of bloke, whatever I saw of him. And intelligent and hard-working.

    Judge him on his voting record, not just his public persona. He's as rotten as most tories.

    Before I posted that, I was tempted to google his voting record. But I chickened out. I'm aware that I'm usually so negative about the Conservatives I just couldn't bring myself to depress myself still further with the revelation that the one Tory MP who seems quite humane, still votes like a b*****d. His record does make for interesting, even mixed, reading - though sadly predictable when it comes to welfare, health, education, EU, and business. I'm guessing he obeyed loyally the whip, and otherwise where his voting pattern diverged from normal Tory, that was where MPs were permitted the use of their own conscience.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    However, he earned just a little credit yesterday by referring to trump as the 'former president'.
    As Trump is still President and will be until January 20 that strikes me as just another example of Johnson's shapeshifting creep approach to accuracy (phrase from a former Obama Press aide).

  • All change - I don't know if I'm Cumming or going :)

    That was a surprise, to me. Brexit panic at the top?
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    From Rory Stewart reviewing Bower's biography of Johnson:

    Bower concludes. therefore, that those of us who criticize him - as I am about to do - are narrow-minded, prudish, inadequate, or envious.
    Perhaps it is envy. Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life - perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister. Some of this may have been a natural talent - but a lifetime of practice and study has allowed him to uncover new possibilities which go beyond all the classifications of dishonesty attempted by classical theorists like St Augustine. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation, and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie - which may inadvertently be true.

    I am a big fan of Rory. He was my choice for Conservative leader but I have never been a party member.

    He always seemed like a decent kind of bloke, whatever I saw of him. And intelligent and hard-working.

    Judge him on his voting record, not just his public persona. He's as rotten as most tories.

    Before I posted that, I was tempted to google his voting record. But I chickened out. I'm aware that I'm usually so negative about the Conservatives I just couldn't bring myself to depress myself still further with the revelation that the one Tory MP who seems quite humane, still votes like a b*****d. His record does make for interesting, even mixed, reading - though sadly predictable when it comes to welfare, health, education, EU, and business. I'm guessing he obeyed loyally the whip, and otherwise where his voting pattern diverged from normal Tory, that was where MPs were permitted the use of their own conscience.

    I was reflecting on the fact that Rt Hon Ken Clarke is to the left of the current parliamentary party. It is worth reflecting that with the exception of European policy, he was in the 80s and 90s a straight-forward neo-liberal economic-thinking right-winger (in terms of UK politics). I don't think he's moved at all in his positions. In the past decade, the Tory party has moved to the right, and they weren't particularly centrist to begin with. Not since Thatcher anyway.

    YMMV, of course.

    AFZ
  • All change - I don't know if I'm Cumming or going :)

    That was a surprise, to me. Brexit panic at the top?

    SOP as I said elsewhere. The revolution is over, the revolutionary is in power and must move on from those who put them there. So one way or another, they have to go.

    Nice btw.
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    From Rory Stewart reviewing Bower's biography of Johnson:

    Bower concludes. therefore, that those of us who criticize him - as I am about to do - are narrow-minded, prudish, inadequate, or envious.
    Perhaps it is envy. Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life - perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister. Some of this may have been a natural talent - but a lifetime of practice and study has allowed him to uncover new possibilities which go beyond all the classifications of dishonesty attempted by classical theorists like St Augustine. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation, and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie - which may inadvertently be true.

    I am a big fan of Rory. He was my choice for Conservative leader but I have never been a party member.

    He always seemed like a decent kind of bloke, whatever I saw of him. And intelligent and hard-working.

    ... and yet a Tory. Puzzling.

    Don't let your bias get in the way of an reasonable judgement

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited November 2020

    If the Conservative party ever reforms itself, maybe Rory thinks he could help lead The New Conservatives?

    Because the fence he is sitting on looks mighty uncomfortable to me......


  • Furtive GanderFurtive Gander Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    From Rory Stewart reviewing Bower's biography of Johnson:

    Bower concludes. therefore, that those of us who criticize him - as I am about to do - are narrow-minded, prudish, inadequate, or envious.
    Perhaps it is envy. Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life - perhaps the best liar ever to serve as prime minister. Some of this may have been a natural talent - but a lifetime of practice and study has allowed him to uncover new possibilities which go beyond all the classifications of dishonesty attempted by classical theorists like St Augustine. He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation, and flat denial. He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie - which may inadvertently be true.

    I am a big fan of Rory. He was my choice for Conservative leader but I have never been a party member.

    He always seemed like a decent kind of bloke, whatever I saw of him. And intelligent and hard-working.

    ... and yet a Tory. Puzzling.

    Don't let your bias get in the way of an reasonable judgement

    Not so much bias as inference from available data. Tories (I'm thinking mostly of MPs but supporters too) are less caring for the welfare of others than other people.

  • It's a reasonable inference.
  • edited November 2020
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    If the Conservative party ever reforms itself, maybe Rory thinks he could help lead The New Conservatives?

    Because the fence he is sitting on looks mighty uncomfortable to me......


    This is a tangent - but I am just finishing the book Stewart wrote after walking from Iran to Nepal - except that bit wasn't interesting enough for the book, which he saves for the stretch across Afghanistan which he completed when it became possible, two months after the Taliban fell getting on for 20 years ago. In the snow, in mountains up to 18,000 ft, alone and with only his competence in who knows how many languages to get by on. Amongst a random bunch of feudal headmen, quite a few of whom were at war with each other, relying on letters of introduction where a good proportion of the players were illiterate. It's quite a read. And we got Boris.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

    Actually, just over half is spent on those things.

    The problem is the narrative which the Tories have pushed has led to an environment where this sort of thing can happen: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/28/disabled-man-starved-to-death-after-dwp-stopped-his-benefits?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

    Where my disabled and mentally ill friends live in fear of brown DWP envelopes.

    Where year on year more and more people have to turn to foodbanks: https://www.trusselltrust.org/news-and-blog/latest-stats/end-year-stats/

    That's the problem.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

    Actually, just over half is spent on those things.
    69.8% is not just over half.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Apparently Crispin Blunt the Tory backbencher has, now Cummings is out of power and persona non grata with Johnson, bravely admitted he was wrong not to call for Cummings to leave after the Barnard Castle affair. He's stopped short of saying that Johnson was wrong not to sack him.

    Normally I approve of people who admit they were wrong.
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

    Actually, just over half is spent on those things.
    69.8% is not just over half.

    Nor is it the vast majority, but the point here is not semantic quibbling.
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

    Actually, just over half is spent on those things.
    69.8% is not just over half.

    Is that including the state pension, and other "benefits" like contribution based JSA or ESA that you can only get if you've paid the relevant contributions?
  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

    Actually, just over half is spent on those things.
    69.8% is not just over half.

    Is that including the state pension, and other "benefits" like contribution based JSA or ESA that you can only get if you've paid the relevant contributions?

    It does include state pensions which are a welfare benefit as the average pensioner gets far more back than they ever paid in.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

    Actually, just over half is spent on those things.
    69.8% is not just over half.

    Is that including the state pension, and other "benefits" like contribution based JSA or ESA that you can only get if you've paid the relevant contributions?

    It does include state pensions which are a welfare benefit as the average pensioner gets far more back than they ever paid in.

    The average recipient of pensions in general gets back far more than they pay in. That's kind of the point.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

    Actually, just over half is spent on those things.
    69.8% is not just over half.

    Is that including the state pension, and other "benefits" like contribution based JSA or ESA that you can only get if you've paid the relevant contributions?

    It does include state pensions which are a welfare benefit as the average pensioner gets far more back than they ever paid in.

    The average recipient of pensions in general gets back far more than they pay in. That's kind of the point.

    It certainly is and it's the tax payer who pays for it.

  • Telford wrote: »
    It certainly is and it's the tax payer who pays for it.

    It's economic growth that pays for it. This is true whether we're talking about the state pension or about private pensions.
  • Telford wrote: »
    It certainly is and it's the tax payer who pays for it.

    It's economic growth that pays for it. This is true whether we're talking about the state pension or about private pensions.

    Economic growth means that more tax is paid but it's still the tax that pays for a old age pension.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    It's not a matter of bias @Telford. The Tory party advocates policies that harm the disabled, the unemployed and people struggling on poverty wages. It promotes a narrative contrasting an ill-defined "hard working families" against people it labels by contrast as shirkers and skivers, and paints wealth as acquired solely by the hard work of the wealthy rather than being in large part dependent on a number of factors, including luck, beyond individuals' control.

    So when one of them indicates (as Stewart did on the radio the other week) that he doesn't believe that narrative one wonders (a) whether he therefore doesn't support the policies which are driven by it, and (b) whether he does or not, why he identifies with a party which promotes and acts on that narrative.

    The vast majority of the money raised from taxes is spent of free eduacation, free healthcare and welfare for those who need it. The many billions borrolwed this year have also been spent on those who need it.

    Actually, just over half is spent on those things.
    69.8% is not just over half.

    Is that including the state pension, and other "benefits" like contribution based JSA or ESA that you can only get if you've paid the relevant contributions?

    It does include state pensions which are a welfare benefit as the average pensioner gets far more back than they ever paid in.

    The average recipient of pensions in general gets back far more than they pay in. That's kind of the point.

    It certainly is and it's the tax payer who pays for it.

    For public sector pensions, obviously that's the case (and is as true for wages as for pensions)*. That doesn't make them welfare. Try that line on a retired soldier and see how you get on. Private pensions are a combination of employee contributions, employer contributions, tax relief and returns on investment.

    *the local government scheme is different as it has an investment fund so while the contributions come from the public purse it is enhanced by the growth of the fund.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    It certainly is and it's the tax payer who pays for it.

    It's economic growth that pays for it. This is true whether we're talking about the state pension or about private pensions.

    Economic growth means that more tax is paid but it's still the tax that pays for a old age pension.

    So we can add government finances to the things you don't understand.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    It certainly is and it's the tax payer who pays for it.

    It's economic growth that pays for it. This is true whether we're talking about the state pension or about private pensions.

    Economic growth means that more tax is paid but it's still the tax that pays for a old age pension.

    So we can add government finances to the things you don't understand.

    If you're compiling a list I'd start with the things he does understand. Much quicker.
  • Our dear Lord Protector is having to self-isolate:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54954698

    Not having a good week, is he? Hopefully he won't get symptoms - especially as his immunity is by no means assured - but it might make it more difficult for him to negotiate the no-deal Brexit he seems to have in mind...
  • Was Dom Cummings present at that meeting? If so, is he going to self isolate by using his free time to tour the country and visit all his remaining friends?
  • Our dear Lord Protector is having to self-isolate:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54954698

    Not having a good week, is he?

    OTOH it's rather handy to have an excuse to self isolate the week after your chief advisor has very publicly walked out.
  • :naughty:

    I think the meeting was just between The Lord Protector and one of his minions, but a subsequent photo shows them both unmasked, and not maintaining social distance...
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    It certainly is and it's the tax payer who pays for it.

    It's economic growth that pays for it. This is true whether we're talking about the state pension or about private pensions.

    Economic growth means that more tax is paid but it's still the tax that pays for a old age pension.

    So we can add government finances to the things you don't understand.

    and I can add you to the list of people who don't like me.
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    It certainly is and it's the tax payer who pays for it.

    It's economic growth that pays for it. This is true whether we're talking about the state pension or about private pensions.

    Economic growth means that more tax is paid but it's still the tax that pays for a old age pension.

    So we can add government finances to the things you don't understand.

    If you're compiling a list I'd start with the things he does understand. Much quicker.
    But not you. You are already on the list
    Our dear Lord Protector is having to self-isolate:
    https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54954698

    Not having a good week, is he? Hopefully he won't get symptoms - especially as his immunity is by no means assured - but it might make it more difficult for him to negotiate the no-deal Brexit he seems to have in mind...
    The policy is to have a deal with the EU and we will.

  • No-deal is, in a sense, a deal (albeit negative).

    I hope you're right, but I'm merely echoing the thoughts of some *insiders* at The Bunker as regards the Lord Protector's attitude.
  • If Boris wants a deal (other than 'Australian style' which is just a WTO-based no deal, it just sounds better than the equally true 'Somalian style' deal) then he needs to acknowledge that the EU is a rules based organisation, and therefore will never be able to agree a deal that violates some of those rules. He may not agree with the rule of law, the EU is built upon that. We've known that those rules create a series of red lines since 2016, a deal will not be reached by continuously demanding that the EU surrender on one or more of those red lines and calling them unreasonable for not backing down on points that would impact the fundamental nature of the EU.
  • You will all be pleased and relieved to read this from our Great Lord Protector:

    It doesn't matter that we were all doing social distancing, it doesn't matter that I'm fit as a butcher's dog, feel great.

    Make of that what you will. I think he must know some great people - good people, the best people...

  • An 'Australian-style' deal is, it appears, a deal with China. Australia is reported to have signed up to an 'Asia-Pacific' trade area, in which China is the principal partner. India has decided not to join.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Hmm. I wonder how well a China-UK deal will sit with President Biden?

    The latter doesn't have much regard for Our Glorious And Puissant Lord Protector, it seems.
  • You will all be pleased and relieved to read this from our Great Lord Protector:

    It doesn't matter that we were all doing social distancing, it doesn't matter that I'm fit as a butcher's dog, feel great.

    Make of that what you will. I think he must know some great people - good people, the best people...

    To be fair to him I think he's trying to get across the message that he's self-isolating on medical advice, even though he's fit, healthy and full of antibodies. One of the current problems of the track and trace thing seems to be that a load of people aren't self-isolating, when contacted and told to do so, because they feel okay. He's saying they should still do it, well or otherwise.

    On the other hand, he's having to self-isolate because he had a meeting with, among others, an MP who the next day was tested positive; and with whom he was photographed - unmasked - after the meeting standing within close touching distance. And also same style of photograph with the PM and individually all the other participants - who are now also having to self-isolate. I'm not saying he was careless. I expect most of us haven't been perfect with self-distancing 100% of the time. But questions are being raised about why the photographs, and why in that fashion?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Yes, I take your point about him obeying the rules- it was just the way he said it that made me think of his Bestest Buddy across the pond...
    :naughty:

    Agreed, too, about the photos.
  • It does set a good example for every one to follow. Unlike his former puppeteer who should have gone home and isolated with his family but instead went back into the office and then drove to Durham, with an eye test while he was away.
  • Hmm. There's quite a bit of comment in the Grauniad, regarding (a) the lack of social distancing/masking as seen in the photos, and (b) the fact that side-by-side is not that much safer than face-to-face.

    YMMV.

    Self-isolating is a good example, yes, but what possibly led to the need for it was not.

    O, and a spokesperson for The Bunker would not say whether the Prime Minister Ms Symonds was living in the flat above the shop.
  • Ms Symonds has a free pass , in my eyes anyway, for a few more days. Just think, without her intervention the Dom might still be in Downing Street......

    However , by Wednesday I ‘ll be just as rude about the Lot of them.
  • O I agree about Ms Symonds performing a signal service to her country, by ridding The Bunker of the Farsighted One, but I wondered if she, too, might have to self-isolate...
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Was Dom Cummings present at that meeting? If so, is he going to self isolate by using his free time to tour the country and visit all his remaining friends?

    He's got friends??? :confused:
  • Yet to be proven, but possibly.

    Lee Cain? Wormtongue? Saruman the White? The nice lady in Specsavers?
  • Maybe more like "people who will say he's their friend, because he has too much dirt on them for them to do otherwise".
  • Ah yes - he knows where the Bodies are buried, as the saying is...
    :grimace:
  • Anselmina wrote: »
    You will all be pleased and relieved to read this from our Great Lord Protector:

    It doesn't matter that we were all doing social distancing, it doesn't matter that I'm fit as a butcher's dog, feel great.

    Make of that what you will. I think he must know some great people - good people, the best people...

    To be fair to him I think he's trying to get across the message that he's self-isolating on medical advice, even though he's fit, healthy and full of antibodies. One of the current problems of the track and trace thing seems to be that a load of people aren't self-isolating, when contacted and told to do so, because they feel okay. He's saying they should still do it, well or otherwise.

    On the other hand, he's having to self-isolate because he had a meeting with, among others, an MP who the next day was tested positive; and with whom he was photographed - unmasked - after the meeting standing within close touching distance. And also same style of photograph with the PM and individually all the other participants - who are now also having to self-isolate. I'm not saying he was careless. I expect most of us haven't been perfect with self-distancing 100% of the time. But questions are being raised about why the photographs, and why in that fashion?

    Good posting. Especially the first paragraph.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Anselmina wrote: »
    You will all be pleased and relieved to read this from our Great Lord Protector:

    It doesn't matter that we were all doing social distancing, it doesn't matter that I'm fit as a butcher's dog, feel great.

    Make of that what you will. I think he must know some great people - good people, the best people...

    To be fair to him I think he's trying to get across the message that he's self-isolating on medical advice, even though he's fit, healthy and full of antibodies. One of the current problems of the track and trace thing seems to be that a load of people aren't self-isolating, when contacted and told to do so, because they feel okay. He's saying they should still do it, well or otherwise.

    On the other hand, he's having to self-isolate because he had a meeting with, among others, an MP who the next day was tested positive; and with whom he was photographed - unmasked - after the meeting standing within close touching distance. And also same style of photograph with the PM and individually all the other participants - who are now also having to self-isolate. I'm not saying he was careless. I expect most of us haven't been perfect with self-distancing 100% of the time. But questions are being raised about why the photographs, and why in that fashion?

    Good posting. Especially the first paragraph.

    Indeed
Sign In or Register to comment.