Very few people did (call him 'Tony'), the use of 'Boris' conjures of decades of constructed personality and deliberate branding that is almost entirely populist.
I suspect the success of brand Boris is at least in large part to do with the fact that Boris is a relatively unusual name. You couldn't call Mr. Blair "Tony" out of context because there are thousands of other famous Tonys.
But if you want to refer to the current Prime Minister as "Boris Johnson", "Johnson", "Mr Johnson", or "the Prime Minister", go right ahead - nobody will stop you.
Agreed. Even in Hell, and even given how utterly appalling a mendacious priapic pseudo-populist git the paternal unit is, I find it unfortunate at best.
A naughty boy who caused death by not listening and delaying the lockdown there to 23March. Which is really fucking terrible. 14March we had less than 15 cases and the shutdown began, with full on 17 March. I live in a backwater part of the armpit of Canada. We're never privy to info before other parts of the world. Boris didn't listen. He actually bragged about shaking hands. Unbelievably stupid. If Shakespeare wrote it, he'd have died deserving it.
Agreed. Even in Hell, and even given how utterly appalling a mendacious priapic pseudo-populist git the paternal unit is, I find it unfortunate at best.
Don't hold back Ross! Tell us what you really think about the PM.
But if you want to refer to the current Prime Minister as "Boris Johnson", "Johnson", "Mr Johnson", or "the Prime Minister", go right ahead - nobody will stop you.
I'm all for not blaming his kids, but if we are going to go all waggy finger about 'adopting the vocabulary of populism' let's at least be somewhat consistent.
I've already attempted, admittedly inconsistently and unsuccessfully, to adopt the use of neutral descriptors for political leaders of all hues in Purgatory, and this discussion has fuelled my resolve to do so more consistently and successfully.
I've already attempted, admittedly inconsistently and unsuccessfully, to adopt the use of neutral descriptors for political leaders of all hues in Purgatory, and this discussion has fuelled my resolve to do so more consistently and successfully.
I had honestly been under the impression that this had already been a hostly instruction so had been doing the same. While, of course, continuing to refer to Twitler and Poundshop Churchill in whatever manner seems appropriate at the time.
IIRC, the original instruction was to avoid systematic use of nicknames in Purgatory, which was a little difficult to apply even-handedly. And it was in a context of one poster in particular who seemed to do little else other than find new names to call Trump and coincidentally or otherwise, stopped posting when that instruction was enforced.
Wilfred is one of those names that appears to be making a comeback. A friend of mine called their child that name. Maybe Boorish is ahead of the trend.
Agreed. Even in Hell, and even given how utterly appalling a mendacious priapic pseudo-populist git the paternal unit is, I find it unfortunate at best.
Don't hold back Ross! Tell us what you really think about the PM.
Speaking as someone who went to private boarding school, yes heart broken - but it takes people in different ways. I think the experience of what family life is, is fundamentally disrupted by pre-16 residential schooling of any kind.
Sometimes it is unavoidable, sometimes it is the least worst option, but I think it scars you.
Speaking as someone who went to private boarding school, yes heart broken - but it takes people in different ways. I think the experience of what family life is, is fundamentally disrupted by pre-16 residential schooling of any kind.
Sometimes it is unavoidable, sometimes it is the least worst option, but I think it scars you.
This is probably worth a thread of its own. Boarding schools where I live are very rare. But I went one because my parents were overseas. There are worse and better schools academically, and the treatment and management of children and youth varies considerably.
WWII meant my father had been in six educational establishments by the time he was 10. He was bright and able, but reduced to sitting in the back of the class with a book to read, because he had missed the previous curriculum elements in each place.
His parents then sent him to Christ’s Hospital (boarding school) to give him some stability as further moves (due to his father’s work) seemed likely. My grandmother gave up her paid work so that their household income fell to the eligibility level at which he got bursary support, otherwise they could not have afforded to send him.
Sometimes it is necessary for some people, and isn’t associated with great privilege.
It's hard to deny that boarding school seems to damage a lot of people.
Boarding schools have changed over the years. It used to be the case that schools would run rather like prison camps - children were expected to be packed off to school with the correct equipment at the start of term, and the only communication that was permitted with the outside world was the statutory weekly letter home (inspected by staff before posting). If my young cousins who went to boarding school are anything to go by, these days schools encourage contact between pupils and their families, and children are allowed home for the weekend more or less at will. Plus they've all got phones etc. now.
(I wonder, also, if the age at which one starts boarding has an effect. My cousins didn't board until they were 11 or 12. That seems to me to be a rather different matter from boarding at 5 or 6.)
I was a weekly boarder at secondary level (Year 9 onwards in today's money), going home on Saturday after morning lessons unless I was in a match team, and going back at crack of dawn on Monday. I decided after 2 years it would be easier to board full time rather than have the faff of commuting, plus it got me away from the disintegrating parental marriage.
Boarding was very civilised: individual study bedrooms and the house cook was pretty good.
Our two did weekly boarding (dropped off on Monday morning, collected Friday afternoon) for their last year of prep school. It was at their request but coincided with a period when we were both working incredibly long hours. They loved it, and the Friday 5pm pick-up ensured we had a decent weekend en famille.
CS Lewis said that he was less unhappy in a WWI trench than at boarding school. Because at least in the trenches you didn’t have to pretend to be enjoying yourself.
I’m willing to accept things have changed a bit in the meantime - although George Monbiot argues I think rather convincingly that a boarding school education explains a lot about the British political class.
You know how hard social care try to avoid removing children from their families, and placing them in residential care ? There are reasons for that.
Well yes, but not all of them the same as why boarding schools are a bad idea. The biggest thing being that even most inmates at boarding schools still have parents who care about them, are in some contact with them, and are likely to do something if, say, they're disappearing every evening in a taxi with a bunch of men three times their age and returning very late with "gifts" and money they didn't have before. And because they have at least semi-effective parents, the schools have a big incentive to avoid such things happening in the first place and the resources to do so. The staff at private children's homes are not well-remunerated or trained and the social workers who should be overseeing the care are run off their feet just trying to protect the children in the absolute worst circumstances.
CS Lewis said that he was less unhappy in a WWI trench than at boarding school. Because at least in the trenches you didn’t have to pretend to be enjoying yourself.
I’m willing to accept things have changed a bit in the meantime - although George Monbiot argues I think rather convincingly that a boarding school education explains a lot about the British political class.
The psychologist Nick Duffell has written a number of books on the topic drawing together his own experiences of being a therapist to people who had been through boarding schools as well as research done in the field.
You know how hard social care try to avoid removing children from their families, and placing them in residential care ? There are reasons for that.
Well yes, but not all of them the same as why boarding schools are a bad idea. The biggest thing being that even most inmates at boarding schools still have parents who care about them, are in some contact with them, and are likely to do something if, say, they're disappearing every evening in a taxi with a bunch of men three times their age and returning very late with "gifts" and money they didn't have before. And because they have at least semi-effective parents, the schools have a big incentive to avoid such things happening in the first place and the resources to do so. The staff at private children's homes are not well-remunerated or trained and the social workers who should be overseeing the care are run off their feet just trying to protect the children in the absolute worst circumstances.
True - but let me also point you at the attachment issues involved in sending children as young as 7 away from family, along with the absolutely massive history of institutional child abuse. Some hidden, e.g. sexual abuse, some not e.g. corporeal punishment and emotional manipulation/abuse.
For many here, going to boarding school was the only way of receiving a secondary school education. Not so much now, as growing populations in country towns have been accompanied by the establishment of many more high schools than there used be.
I don't think its fair to extrapolate that all boarding school experiences are harmful just because some are.
The sad fact for the past 50+ years is that a boarding school is seen as the place to provide stability for a child when a parental marriage is failing. While this might work for some, probably older children, for younger ones it can be very harmful: removal from the family home knocking from under them one of the last supporting struts already weakened by parental disharmony.
Everyone I know who went to Stowe (Monbiot's alma mater) loved it. Since it's foundation Stowe has had a reputation for being particularly good on the pastoral side. Monbiot reports being unhappy at every educational establishment he attended: could it be that he was just unhappy, full-stop?
Everyone I know who went to Stowe (Monbiot's alma mater) loved it. Since it's foundation Stowe has had a reputation for being particularly good on the pastoral side. Monbiot reports being unhappy at every educational establishment he attended: could it be that he was just unhappy, full-stop?
Victim blaming. How surprising. I believe C S Lewis (and Orwell, and anyone else in public life who complained about their experience of boarding school) experienced the same sort of snide bullshit.
I'm not blaming anyone, but nor do I think Mr Monbiot is a victim. Easy black-and-white reasoning can be very seductive but life is usually rather more complicated than that.
We Skyped with our family this morning. 2-year old Jasper has a lovely soft-toy pigeon which for some reason is called “Boris”. He now points at pigeons outdoors and says, “Boris”. Should they get him to watch the TV news and, when the PM comes on, get him to say, “Pigeon”?
Not trolling at all. Blair wasn't bad, but its about context. Boris gave the socialists a right good thrashing in Dec 2019 and his popularity ratings are extraordinary at the moment.
What do popularity ratings have to do with anything? The Spice Girls were very popular, that doesn't mean they'd have made a good government or even musicians.
Comments
I suspect the success of brand Boris is at least in large part to do with the fact that Boris is a relatively unusual name. You couldn't call Mr. Blair "Tony" out of context because there are thousands of other famous Tonys.
But if you want to refer to the current Prime Minister as "Boris Johnson", "Johnson", "Mr Johnson", or "the Prime Minister", go right ahead - nobody will stop you.
It's a brand. "Boris". Like McDonalds it spells one thing to people who like it and another to people who don't.
What if they mated?
A naughty boy who caused death by not listening and delaying the lockdown there to 23March. Which is really fucking terrible. 14March we had less than 15 cases and the shutdown began, with full on 17 March. I live in a backwater part of the armpit of Canada. We're never privy to info before other parts of the world. Boris didn't listen. He actually bragged about shaking hands. Unbelievably stupid. If Shakespeare wrote it, he'd have died deserving it.
And “BoJo” is the equivalent of “Maccy D’s”
Don't hold back Ross! Tell us what you really think about the PM.
I'm all for not blaming his kids, but if we are going to go all waggy finger about 'adopting the vocabulary of populism' let's at least be somewhat consistent.
I had honestly been under the impression that this had already been a hostly instruction so had been doing the same. While, of course, continuing to refer to Twitler and Poundshop Churchill in whatever manner seems appropriate at the time.
All ex-public school pupils can suffer from it.
Of course they can; but IME Brigstocke's observations apply to a large number of them.
Sometimes it is unavoidable, sometimes it is the least worst option, but I think it scars you.
Oh, diddums. They might just have to console themselves with their enormous privileges and advantages.
This is probably worth a thread of its own. Boarding schools where I live are very rare. But I went one because my parents were overseas. There are worse and better schools academically, and the treatment and management of children and youth varies considerably.
It's hard to deny that boarding school seems to damage a lot of people.
His parents then sent him to Christ’s Hospital (boarding school) to give him some stability as further moves (due to his father’s work) seemed likely. My grandmother gave up her paid work so that their household income fell to the eligibility level at which he got bursary support, otherwise they could not have afforded to send him.
Sometimes it is necessary for some people, and isn’t associated with great privilege.
Boarding schools have changed over the years. It used to be the case that schools would run rather like prison camps - children were expected to be packed off to school with the correct equipment at the start of term, and the only communication that was permitted with the outside world was the statutory weekly letter home (inspected by staff before posting). If my young cousins who went to boarding school are anything to go by, these days schools encourage contact between pupils and their families, and children are allowed home for the weekend more or less at will. Plus they've all got phones etc. now.
(I wonder, also, if the age at which one starts boarding has an effect. My cousins didn't board until they were 11 or 12. That seems to me to be a rather different matter from boarding at 5 or 6.)
Boarding was very civilised: individual study bedrooms and the house cook was pretty good.
Our two did weekly boarding (dropped off on Monday morning, collected Friday afternoon) for their last year of prep school. It was at their request but coincided with a period when we were both working incredibly long hours. They loved it, and the Friday 5pm pick-up ensured we had a decent weekend en famille.
I’m willing to accept things have changed a bit in the meantime - although George Monbiot argues I think rather convincingly that a boarding school education explains a lot about the British political class.
Well yes, but not all of them the same as why boarding schools are a bad idea. The biggest thing being that even most inmates at boarding schools still have parents who care about them, are in some contact with them, and are likely to do something if, say, they're disappearing every evening in a taxi with a bunch of men three times their age and returning very late with "gifts" and money they didn't have before. And because they have at least semi-effective parents, the schools have a big incentive to avoid such things happening in the first place and the resources to do so. The staff at private children's homes are not well-remunerated or trained and the social workers who should be overseeing the care are run off their feet just trying to protect the children in the absolute worst circumstances.
The psychologist Nick Duffell has written a number of books on the topic drawing together his own experiences of being a therapist to people who had been through boarding schools as well as research done in the field.
True - but let me also point you at the attachment issues involved in sending children as young as 7 away from family, along with the absolutely massive history of institutional child abuse. Some hidden, e.g. sexual abuse, some not e.g. corporeal punishment and emotional manipulation/abuse.
The sad fact for the past 50+ years is that a boarding school is seen as the place to provide stability for a child when a parental marriage is failing. While this might work for some, probably older children, for younger ones it can be very harmful: removal from the family home knocking from under them one of the last supporting struts already weakened by parental disharmony.
Everyone I know who went to Stowe (Monbiot's alma mater) loved it. Since it's foundation Stowe has had a reputation for being particularly good on the pastoral side. Monbiot reports being unhappy at every educational establishment he attended: could it be that he was just unhappy, full-stop?
Victim blaming. How surprising. I believe C S Lewis (and Orwell, and anyone else in public life who complained about their experience of boarding school) experienced the same sort of snide bullshit.
“Homesickness” lasting weeks is not a normal developmental process, it is separation anxiety cause by being separated from one’s family.
Children adapt - that’s what humans have to do. Goffman’s Asylums gives a good overview of how people typically adjust to total institutions.
Sometimes, it is better than alternative but that maybe because the alternative is ropey AF.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1259440331763978240
Meh. Mediocre trolling. 3/10