|
I suppose we can't but hope Starmer will mention Legoland when he addresses them.
|
|
Johnson does seem to be losing what semblance of grip he ever had.
|
|
Classic Columbo. Fumble, scratch your head, appear shambolic and confused, search through your pockets, twirl around a couple of times and just when everyone thinks you're an incompetent buffoon, hit them with a killer Pepper Pig analogy.
|
I think there's plenty of reasons to think that Johnson is a clown without making stuff up. I'm not saying that the speech was great, but the Granuad nonsense and the carefully chosen reported comments are all designed to represent it in a certain way aimed to appeal to a certain audience.
His point about Peppa Pig, though clumsily made was well made. His point about the noise of a car was that EVs were great but didn't make that noise, and his comment about Moses was a [bad] joke.
The stuff that was wrong with the speech was more a lack of substance and the level of spin, both of which appear to be quite beyond the Granuad to explain, or at least that they believe is beyond their readers to grasp.
That level of journalistic scratching irritate tf out of me.
As I said, plenty of things to criticise without making schoolboy stuff up. The Granuad and no doubt others should have focussed on the Q&A. That's where he could have been pulled to pieces.
Listen for yourself, I did. 22 min speech and then about the same Q&A.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb38AujLFPQ
|
|
Why don’t you call it The Guardian?
|
>> Why don’t you call it The Guardian?
It's been known as The Grauniad for 40+ years.
Joke from Private Eye (I think) about its poor standard of typesetting.
|
|
Was it a funny joke 40 years ago???
|
>> Was it a funny joke 40 years ago???
As funny as Private Eye jokes ever are, which generally is not very. But sometimes they stick for good reason.
And if the reason is to needle a reaction, then I'd say it was still effective. Wouldn't you?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 22 Nov 21 at 16:07
|
>>It's been known as The Grauniad for 40+ years.
More like 50+ I should think. I'm sure I remember reading it in Private Eye at school so that would have been around the very early 70s somewhere.
|
>> More like 50+ I should think. I'm sure I remember reading it in Private Eye
>> at school so that would have been around the very early 70s somewhere.
You're right I think. P E wasn't to my Father's taste so we never had it at home and I don't remember it in school. Some place we stayed in Wales during the summer of 76 run by a former Journo (Express?) had several Private Eye yearbooks in the 'resident's library' which was the first time I came across it.
Ugandan Discussions is another that sticks in my mind. My then HEO, a dedicated reader himself, had to explain it to me after an allusion to Ugandan Discussions on the Principal's office, 'The Prin' was a serial post pub lunch shagger of (mostly loose) women.
|
My favourite will always be "Arkell v. Pressdram"
For your enjoyment and reminiscing...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_jokes_in_Private_Eye
|
Thing about Boris is he is now bored.
He achieved his ambition to be PM and has discovered that it’s more hassle and work than he has ever been asked to do before. He is not a man that has ever been interested in detail and this therefore constantly comes back to bite him.
However through his lies and fraud and position he has lined a lot of his friends and supporters pockets and there is no doubt, as soon as he goes, he will expect this favour to be returned.
He has set this country back years, decades, and I just hope that when he does go, whoever replaces him is better. Which I’m not sure will be the case.
|
I think Johnson is awful and the only thing keeping him there is the quality of his competitors, on either side of the house. Most politicians seem to have little in the way of integrity, more a question of whether or not they are stupid enough to get caught out, and it would appear that Johnson is absolutely stupid enough.
But what a silly emotive comment is "He has set this country back years, decades". That's the sort of crap which keeps getting us crappy politicians, because all we want them to do is throw silly statements around which we like more than we like the other side's silly statements.
|
>> But what a silly emotive comment is "He has set this country back years, decades".
>> That's the sort of crap which keeps getting us crappy politicians, because all we want
>> them to do is throw silly statements around which we like more than we like
>> the other side's silly statements.
Johnson is the man who's salesmanship got Brexit over the line. That alone, without some of the stuff his government is trying for now, justifies Bobby's remark. If he'd gone with his instincts which all previous evidence suggests was remain, or been like May hand kept his head down, then leave would likely not have won
He thought it was all a jolly jape with the added bonus that, when Cameron went (as he was committed to) BJ would be well positioned with the Brexiteer MPs and membership.
Do you remember his face the day after?
|
>> Johnson is the man who's salesmanship got Brexit over the line.
True. Without much in the way of substance.
>>That alone, without some of the stuff his government is trying for now, justifies Bobby's remark.
How so? The statement is emotional nonsense without substance. Or do you simply mean from a "good for the goose" point of view?
>>If he'd gone with his instincts which all previous evidence suggests was remain, or been like >> May hand kept his head down, then leave would likely not have won
Sad but true.
>> He thought it was all a jolly jape with the added bonus that, when Cameron
>> went (as he was committed to) BJ would be well positioned with the Brexiteer MPs
>> and membership.
I think you're right. He thought Remain would win without his support so he'd get what he wanted (Remain) but be well-placed to be the outraged Brexit supporter.
>> Do you remember his face the day after?
I do indeed. He looked like he'd sat on something very cold and very sharp.
Difficult to say who is worse out of Cameron, May and Johnson. An absolute shower without any doubt. They were all rubbish but I think Johnson is the most disingenuous. Least honest, if you prefer.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 22 Nov 21 at 16:16
|
>> How so? The statement is emotional nonsense without substance. Or do you simply mean from
>> a "good for the goose" point of view?
If the following let's my colours show I'm sorry; I've tried to be neutral
In no particular order Patel's Borders Bill, curtailing Judicial Review and threatening the Supreme Court. The absurd and inevitably doomed attempt to keep Owen Paterson afloat. constant portrayal of the EU as pantomime villain for all and sundry. Trying to wriggle out of the Irish Protocol HE agreed with the Irish PM to get him off May's backstop hook.
>> Difficult to say who is worse out of Cameron, May and Johnson. An absolute shower
>> without any doubt. They were all rubbish but I think Johnson is the most disingenuous.
>> Least honest, if you prefer.
No liking for either May or Cameron. The latter was at least a human face after IDS and Howard and, seemed as OK as he could be in the Coalition - apart from re the EU. He failed to have a plan B for if as he unexpectedly did he won in 2015. Being a complete Ass with his European counterparts in 2010-15 meant he's no political capital just when he needed it.
May was a fundamentally honest MP/Minister but with zero pzazz or charisma. Best on offer in 2016 by a long chalk....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 22 Nov 21 at 16:27
|
>> If the following let's my colours show I'm sorry; I've tried to be neutral
Your 'colours' don't bother me. One should always be true to ones convictions, and you are, which I admire. To be clear the bit I object to is the way that your colours move your judgement standard. Crap is crap, whatever the colours. And by the same measure, good is good.
>> In no particular order...................
All crap. Dangerous crap in places. But that still doesn't make the comment substantial.
>> No liking for either May or Cameron. The latter was at least a human face after IDS and
Howard and, seemed as OK as he could be in the Coalition - apart from re the EU. He failed to have a plan B for if as he unexpectedly did he won in 2015. Being a complete Ass with his European counterparts in 2010-15 meant he's no political capital just when he needed it.
I have no response to any of that. Looking back over previous leaders/principals just makes it more and more depressing.
Cameron said a year or two ago that he did not regret calling the referendum and that it was the right thing to do. Well, that's as may be, but making an absolute cack of it without setting thresholds, principles, consequences, level of bind, etc. etc. was not the right thing.
What a smug t***. Bit like Blair over Iraq.
>> May was a fundamentally honest MP/Minister but with zero pzazz or charisma.
I'm not so sure she was honest, it's just that if one is completely ineffectual one's level of honesty doesn't matter much. Or at least it doesn't show.
>>Best on offer in 2016 by a long chalk....
Not exactly a high benchmark.
When was the last time a fundamentally good man or woman ran this country?
|
>> When was the last time a fundamentally good man or woman ran this country?
Not, Churchill who for all his brilliance as the man of his time after 1940 was fundamentally flawed.
Clem Attlee?
Wilson was too 'political' with his backroom cabals etc.
Heath?
John Smith might have been if he'd made office.
On the subject of former PMs I was amazed to hear last week of the death of Anthony Eden's widow Clarissa. I thought she'd been dead for decades!!!
|
I think Edward Heath, like James Callaghan, wasn't very good at the job which makes it difficult to judge how good a man he was.
Clement Attlee, on the other hand, was a good man and was also good at the job. Of course, he faced a very different country/world to the one we face these days, it is impossible to judge how he would do now.
But in his day he left the place far better than he found it in almost every way, I think.
|
>>But what a silly emotive comment is "He has set this country back years, decades".
I'm with Bobby on that one. Years anyway, and that would depend on fixing things. Brexit was never likely to show much of a profit, but the version we have is a long way from what was trailed and has probably already cost us far more than we have ever paid into the EU.
|
|
I was exactly referring to Brexit. You arguing this hasn’t set us back decades?
|
>> I was exactly referring to Brexit. You arguing this hasn’t set us back decades?
>
1) Yes
2) Johnson didn't do it. Voters did.
|
>> I was exactly referring to Brexit. You arguing this hasn’t set us back decades?
>>
Me? No. I think it could well be decades, but it's definitely years. How long it is probably depends on what happens next but I don't see it being anything good.
And I'd say it was Johnson, and the rest, rather than the people - I can't believe that many who voted for Brexit wanted what it has been turned into. Perhaps Johnson was hijacked as well.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 22 Nov 21 at 17:08
|
>>I can't believe that many who voted for Brexit wanted what it has been turned into.
I think many had absolutely no clue as to what it was going to be yet, considerations of gross incompetency to one side, it was never going to be much different to this.
I don't think Johnson gets hijacked as such. But I get the impression that as long as those around him are playing in areas he doesn't care about, then he pays absolutely no attention.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 22 Nov 21 at 17:16
|
>> >>But what a silly emotive comment is "He has set this country back years, decades".
>>
>> I'm with Bobby on that one. Years anyway, and that would depend on fixing things.
>> Brexit was never likely to show much of a profit, but the version we have
>> is a long way from what was trailed and has probably already cost us far
>> more than we have ever paid into the EU.
>>
"Years anyway".
Perhaps, that is at least more realistic. But again, Johnson was driven by voters. He is a self-centred, disingenuous, dick of doubtful integrity. But he didn't do anything on his own.
Not sure about the cost. I doubt it but the apocalypse makes it impossible to know.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 22 Nov 21 at 16:51
|
>> Perhaps, that is at least more realistic. But again, Johnson was driven by voters.
I'm not convinced, so far as Brexit is concerned that that is the case.
He went out to bat as a salesman for Brexit. He almost certainly convinced enough waverers to make the difference.
Or perhaps he was driven by voters but those that elect the leader of the Tory party rather than the electorate.
|
>> >> Perhaps, that is at least more realistic. But again, Johnson was driven by voters.
>>
>> I'm not convinced, so far as Brexit is concerned that that is the case.
>>
>> He went out to bat as a salesman for Brexit. He almost certainly convinced enough
>> waverers to make the difference.
As to what he did, I agree. But the difference it made? No, I think you're making a leap there.
>> Or perhaps he was driven by voters but those that elect the leader of the
>> Tory party rather than the electorate.
Interesting thought. Some combination of the both, I guess.
|
We ALL collectively voted for this clown. We all had a vote, the opposition was dire at the time (IMHO), he won because he got the most seats and more votes than any other party.
Arguing the toss about "first past the post" is futile - that is the system we all knew we had. A referendum a few years ago for an alternative lost soundly.
Boris (as most politicians) is far from stupid. He has major faults - lacking integrity, promising but not delivering, failing to accept responsibility for errors to name but few. He is also generally (this talk excepted) an excellent communicator, generates enthusiasm and aspiration.
"Get it done" and associated slogans created positive vote Brexit messages. The opposition assumed that rational analysis and risk aversion would win the day. They (and I) were disappointed.
If the question is "who were the most decent of the 16 PMs post WW2" one may be drawn to Gordon Brown, Theresa May. Electoral failures but sincere and apparently fairly honest.
The most influential would be very different - they are the game changers and disruptors - Thatcher, Blair, Churchill. Boris may yet qualify for Brexit - the jury is very much out. They are all flawed individuals - willing to do and say all to achieve their personal goals.
Those who made little lasting impact include Cameron, Heath, Wilson, Macmillan, Major, Callaghan - it is not that they did or achieved nothing - they just don't make the premier league of notable PMs.
|
>> The most influential would be very different - they are the game changers and disruptors
>> - Thatcher, Blair, Churchill.
Surely Attlee belongs on that Pantheon too? What he and people like Bevan achieved between 45 and 50 is beyond comparison.
I'd also endorse what you say about Brown. Totally lacking the people skills to be a PM but his personal commitment was (and is) absolutely real.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 22 Nov 21 at 18:17
|
If I were chosing the top four Atlee would probably be next on the list.
Like Eurovision, Masterchef etc etc chosing "winners" is always going to be a bit marginal. In truth Churchill is in the list because of his wartime leadership, not his post war premiership!
|
>>Boris (as most politicians) is far from stupid.
Not in IQ perhaps, and he really does have the gift of the gab, at least to anyone who isn't listening properly. But in empathy and the quality of his judgement? He lives in the moment. He says whatever is most convenient at the time, even when it is a half-truth or worse. He's got away with it with a sort of double bluff - he acts the fool so well that nobody can believe he's that stupid - a sort of absent-minded professor act, so people think he's really smart.
I don't believe he's fooled many of the sharper people at the top of the Conservative party. What they saw was electability, and perhaps a useful fool. They must be thinking it's rather got away from them.
I told you he was no good;)
Who'll replace him? Hunt has been rehabilitating himself while distancing from Johnson He's recanted some of his cost cutting in Health, saying he was wrong. Javid is growing in stature and stood up to Johnson's and Cummings' attempts to appoint his advisers for him when he was Chancellor. Sunak?
|
|
I wonder if there's an assumption on here that people couldn't see through his act and didn't vote for him out of needs must.
|
I got a bit tangled up in the negatives there.
Your point is that people already knew what he was like but voted for him anyway because of lack of choice to achieve a goal?
Not impossible by any means, but I don't think that was the case.
|
>> I got a bit tangled up in the negatives there.
For whatever reason, Corbyn; the manifesto or; Brexit Labour were ruled out by a lot of people and Johnson was the only alternative.
Some though, and if you listen to Times Radio's focus group podcast, they're still there honestly regard him, perhaps Trump like, as an anti-politician.
|
Sorry, now I've read it, it is a bit fuzzy. I could have made myself clearer.
'Your point is that people already knew what he was like but voted for him anyway because of lack of choice to achieve a goal?'
Yes. It's always difficult to generalise with large numbers of people, but I think some/enough people fit into that description.
|
He doesn't look that well either.... very grey faced.
|
>> Sorry, now I've read it, it is a bit fuzzy. I could have made myself
>> clearer.
>>
>> 'Your point is that people already knew what he was like but voted for him
>> anyway because of lack of choice to achieve a goal?'
>>
>>
>> Yes. It's always difficult to generalise with large numbers of people, but I think some/enough
>> people fit into that description.
I think every category has some people in it.
But how many people realised just how awful Johnson was and voted for him anyway? I didn't. I mean, I knew he was an a***, but I thought he was smarter than he turned out to be and that we would be protected by his own desire to go down in history as a hero.
I think my theory was sound but I totally miscalculated his level of short-termism, willingness to knew jerk, his lack of regard for anybody outside his immediate focus, etc. etc.
So did some really know what he was like, then yes, I guess so. But many? No, I don;t think so.
|
There is a danger in assuming that voters are universally sufficiently bright to make rational balanced judgements. Some are, many (perhaps most) vote based on personal circumstance and perceptions of personalities and policies.
Political priority is election. The good ol' days - MPs standing on real soap boxes, formal interviews on the BBC, media intent on intelligent (if skewed) reporting are long gone.
Presentation is the key to success. Like selling baked beans, cars, consumer durables etc with the added advantage of no Advertising Standards Agency oversight - try not to lie too obviously, be selective with the truth, rubbish the opposition, feed aspirations, not fear.
Boris will likely be unseated by his own party when he (a) no longer seems an electoral asset, and (b) can plausibly close down further criticism for Brexit and the Covid response.
His replacement ("new broom sweeping clean") may have 2-3 years before the next election. Only in the last few weeks Keir has looked an effective opposition leader, despite the material Boris has given him over the past two years.
Can he keep it up for another 2 or 3 years? May simply rest on how Covid and Brexit pan out.
|
Many may already have read this, but still very valid.
reaction.life/jeremy-vine-my-boris-story/
|
|
If he hadn't have done what he did, either by massive c**k up or by design, no-one would have been aware of the speech. Was it a clever PR thing ? Who knows.
|
>> If he hadn't have done what he did, either by massive c**k up or by
>> design, no-one would have been aware of the speech. Was it a clever PR thing
>> ? Who knows.
Clever? Hmmm I know.
|
A clear illustration of how absolute self confidence triumphs over rationality and objectivity. He is a master of the art!
He could, if he felt so inclined, sell ice cream to Eskimos, and central heating to folk in the Phillipines. Only later would the realisation begin to dawn that neither were needed.
He got elected, got Brexit done, beat Covid with vaccines. He so completely and confidently dismisses critcism that despite all his failings on covid and Brexit, the opposition made not even a minor dent until the last two weeks.
We may all claim to have been wise before the event, but most folk are only now beginning to understand that by comparison timeshare salesmen are honest and decent. The gulf between promise, rhetoric and delivery is becoming clear!
|
>> We may all claim to have been wise before the event,
I was, I said so on here.
|
>>either by massive c**k up or by design
Can there be any doubt? The thrust of Vine's story to me is that Johnson inhabits a persona, a facade, and like the hair which he can often be seen 'untidying', it's substantially faked. He won't have realised how obvious it is, at the time he does, he believes it himself. Classic malignant narcissism.
|
Seriously WTF voted for this clown? - bathtub tom
