The National Midday Sun

Signals => General Chat - English => Topic started by: Matt2112 on July 27, 2019, 04:07:58 am

Title: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on July 27, 2019, 04:07:58 am
Following on from the thread about BoJo's ultimately successful campaign to become PM.

Tell you what, I've just happened upon BBC News coverage where me mate Hilary Benn stands up and shows the Labour front bench how you calmly ask a question of a senior Tory that has him scrabbling around for an answer he can't give.

To think, Corbyn gave this class act the Spanish Archer from the shadow cabinet.  :-\
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Richard_2112 on July 30, 2019, 17:58:19 pm
Already touting the idea of direct rule of Northern Ireland and the pound has hit a two year low. We're in for a very rough ride with Boris at the helm...
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on July 30, 2019, 21:16:33 pm
Hillary Benn is a very clever and capable politician, but I think he's been intent on defying a referendum result since before he became chairman of the select committee for Brexit. You might think he's a class act; I certainly don't.

I'll take a politician like Boris, who will defend the people's interest and fight our country's corner, thanks. Rather than sell it out in the service of foreign powers like Benn.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on July 30, 2019, 23:14:36 pm
Quote from: Richard_2112 on July 30, 2019, 17:58:19 pmAlready touting the idea of direct rule of Northern Ireland 
Good.

Then do the same for Scotland and Wales.

One United Kingdom. One Parliament. Simples.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on July 31, 2019, 09:15:50 am
Hilary Benn May be a remainer but as far as I can tell he accepts the result and I've only ever seen a pragmatic and dignified stance on his part.  If in any way he intends to undermine the result then I think he is profoundly wrong to hold that position.  But he doesn't strike me as having a Swinson-esque zeal to sabotage the vote come what may.

Look at Hilary Benn in the round though and he's a genuinely progressive and liberal politician who serves his constituency extremely well.  He's wasted in a party led by Corbyn.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on July 31, 2019, 23:09:49 pm
let's talk about a racist and a liar....Boris Johnson.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXyO_MC9g3k&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXyO_MC9g3k&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on July 31, 2019, 23:17:28 pm
Liar? Yes, he's a politician.
Racist? Probably not, he's Turkish.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: The Letter R on August 01, 2019, 09:17:46 am
I'm no grand supporter of Boris but will give him a couple of months and see what he does with the mess we're in.
If he can get a better deal out of the EU I will be very surprised - best I can think is a fudge on the TM deal over the backstop. Personally I can see us still being in the EU at Christmas......
The main problem I have with him is that although he can at times talk a good game I never know if I can believe him or if indeed he believes himself at times......
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on August 01, 2019, 15:34:28 pm
Quote from: The Letter R on August 01, 2019, 09:17:46 amI'm no grand supporter of Boris but will give him a couple of months and see what he does with the mess we're in.
If he can get a better deal out of the EU I will be very surprised - best I can think is a fudge on the TM deal over the backstop. Personally I can see us still being in the EU at Christmas......
The main problem I have with him is that although he can at times talk a good game I never know if I can believe him or if indeed he believes himself at times......
The 'backstop' will not be a problem to a PM who is committed to taking us out of the EU, unlike the last one. It is nothing more than a voodoo spell to bewitch and befuddle the feeble minded, and was invented by Theresa May as a sneaky customs union that would continue to bind us to Brussels rules.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on August 01, 2019, 15:56:39 pm
Unfortunately the backstop will be a problem.  The Good Friday agreement which has maintained relative peace in Northern Ireland for the last couple of decades and which all parties have agreed will be maintained is dependent on no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Leaving without a deal and on WTO terms necessitates a border between the 2 countries.  Boris Johnson will need to be a genius to square that circle.  If he manages it kudos to him!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on August 01, 2019, 16:00:26 pm
Quote from: döm on August 01, 2019, 15:56:39 pmUnfortunately the backstop will be a problem.  The Good Friday agreement which has maintained relative peace in Northern Ireland for the last couple of decades and which all parties have agreed will be maintained is dependent on no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Leaving without a deal and on WTO terms necessitates a border between the 2 countries.  Boris Johnson will need to be a genius to square that circle.  If he manages it kudos to him!
We'll see mate. Remainers will just cling to everything to try and see democracy fail.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nick on August 01, 2019, 16:19:37 pm
Problem is Zoony you have to overcome this logic..https://twitter.com/mwalker50/status/1156712418258694149 see the Jonathon Powell interview from Newsnight, great explanation of the issue.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on August 01, 2019, 16:46:48 pm
Quote from: Matt2112 on July 31, 2019, 09:15:50 amHilary Benn May be a remainer but as far as I can tell he accepts the result and I've only ever seen a pragmatic and dignified stance on his part.  If in any way he intends to undermine the result then I think he is profoundly wrong to hold that position.  But he doesn't strike me as having a Swinson-esque zeal to sabotage the vote come what may.

Look at Hilary Benn in the round though and he's a genuinely progressive and liberal politician who serves his constituency extremely well.  He's wasted in a party led by Corbyn.

There's nothing liberal about him, he's just less honest than Swinson.

Quite encouraged to read the most recent YouGov voting intention poll:

(http://truth.justdied.com/images/yougovaug2019.png)


That's 45% in total for the democratic centre parties, and the Conservative figure reflects an impressive first week for the new Prime Minister, as does the left's obvious fear. Even I didn't expect him to be quite so assured and sure-footed so early on.

There's no doubt that Boris' conciliatory, constructive determination to fight the UK's corner and offer commendable clarity on Brexit for a change has been popular.

The important thing now is that the democratic mainstream parties work constructively together for the same goal against our enemies abroad and the Little Europeans at home.

I'll be interested to see how long the EU's intransigence lasts in the current circumstances. What a shame we couldn't have taken the same approach three years ago.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: BasspedalMan on August 01, 2019, 17:06:20 pm
Boris is a self-serving Twat, although I should really have found out what the Latin for 'Twat' was... If he has any nuts whatsoever he will revoke article 50 and start again. I am not scared of Brexit per-se but the horlicks made of it up to now means that any outcome is completely untenable.

I have to admit to enjoying his first foray to the Dispatch Box though!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on August 01, 2019, 17:46:47 pm
Well - revoking Article 50 would still be something of a betrayal of the referendum result, even if the intention is to resubmit it and start afresh. Because it's been over three years now and we need certainty, and closure.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on August 01, 2019, 19:19:04 pm
Quote from: BasspedalMan on August 01, 2019, 17:06:20 pmBoris is a self-serving Twat, although I should really have found out what the Latin for 'Twat' was... If he has any nuts whatsoever he will revoke article 50 and start again. I am not scared of Brexit per-se but the horlicks made of it up to now means that any outcome is completely untenable.

I have to admit to enjoying his first foray to the Dispatch Box though!
You say you're not scared of Brexit.....but you're clearly against it. If leaving the EU is achieved, the outcome is tenable and has a democratic mandate.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nick on August 01, 2019, 20:49:21 pm
Quote from: zoony on August 01, 2019, 15:34:28 pmThe 'backstop' will not be a problem to a PM who is committed to taking us out of the EU, unlike the last one. It is nothing more than a voodoo spell to bewitch and befuddle the feeble minded, and was invented by Theresa May as a sneaky customs union that would continue to bind us to Brussels rules.
The backstop was devised by Brits and conceded by the EU. You can't make this stuff up.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on August 02, 2019, 09:37:05 am
Quote from: Nick on August 01, 2019, 20:49:21 pmThe backstop was devised by Brits and conceded by the EU. You can't make this stuff up.
I'm not sure that's true, but it's unimportant. It was agreed provisionally by May and the EU. It was partly responsible for a wave of resignations of senior ministers. It's not acceptable to the current government or parliament. And it's dead now.

So here's a sorry little tale, but a timely lesson for the Conservative Party:

(http://truth.justdied.com/images/brecon.png)
That's 49.5% of the vote for the democratic centre, but of course - it's split, and came to nothing. Despite a strongly pro-democratic, pro-Leave Conservative Party the Brexit Party did extremely well, with three times the share of the vote that UKIP managed in 2017. The voters will not trust the Tories until they get the referendum result over the line, and that's why there can't be a General Election until it's done.

Unless Boris and Nigel can cook up some sort of electoral pact of course, which I'd love to see.

The official opposition nearly lost their deposit during a mid-term by-election. That's a seat where they got 18% of the vote in 2017. It all makes for a very unpredictable and dangerous environment, with the British People walking a razor's edge between betrayal and salvation.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on August 02, 2019, 10:11:44 am
Labour: 5.3% ;D

"Uh-oh, Jeremy Corbyn"

;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on August 02, 2019, 10:40:03 am
Played a blinder there have the LDs; beat Labour to the punch months ago with a clear and firm alternative to Brexit, negotiated pacts with the Greens and PC to increase their vote share, elected a dynamic young leader over a stuffy, anonymous older one and it has all worked an absolute treat (though, to be clear, I take no pleasure from it).

James Cleverly's sour grapes this morning where he described the LD's "dirty back-room deals" may come back to haunt him when the backlash comes and the Tories make a pact with Farage.  Ah, so that will be alright, then, Mr Cleverly.

Politics is broken at the moment.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on August 02, 2019, 11:02:52 am
Quote from: Matt2112 on August 02, 2019, 10:40:03 amPolitics is broken at the moment.
Not so sure it's ever worked right.
However, the disconnect between the elected and the electorate has never been so great, at least not under universal suffrage.

We need a lowlife reality TV watching party.
A bleeding heart Liberal snowflake party.
And a heads down, get on with it, life's a bitch and then you die party.

I'd vote for the latter.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on August 02, 2019, 23:59:03 pm
Quote from: Matt2112 on August 02, 2019, 10:40:03 amPlayed a blinder there have the LDs; beat Labour to the punch months ago with a clear and firm alternative to Brexit, negotiated pacts with the Greens and PC to increase their vote share, elected a dynamic young leader over a stuffy, anonymous older one and it has all worked an absolute treat (though, to be clear, I take no pleasure from it).

James Cleverly's sour grapes this morning where he described the LD's "dirty back-room deals" may come back to haunt him when the backlash comes and the Tories make a pact with Farage.  Ah, so that will be alright, then, Mr Cleverly.

Politics is broken at the moment.
Dynamic young leader? You mean another crackpot who refuses to accept democracy mate!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on August 04, 2019, 02:28:32 am
Quote from: zoony on August 02, 2019, 23:59:03 pmDynamic young leader? You mean another crackpot who refuses to accept democracy mate!
I don't think they're mutually exclusive, Rob.  She's attracting votes.

I voted remain on balance, but the prevailing vote was for leave. So as far as I'm concerned, we leave, and that is that.

Swinson is an extreme remainer only because she knows it gets votes from a deeply resentful 48%; otherwise, the LDs would be toast.

And I take no pleasure from any of it pal.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on August 04, 2019, 09:58:09 am
Quote from: Matt2112 on August 04, 2019, 02:28:32 amI don't think they're mutually exclusive, Rob.  She's attracting votes.

I voted remain on balance, but the prevailing vote was for leave. So as far as I'm concerned, we leave, and that is that.

Swinson is an extreme remainer only because she knows it gets votes from a deeply resentful 48%; otherwise, the LDs would be toast.

And I take no pleasure from any of it pal.
Exactly. Respect to you, sir.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on August 04, 2019, 20:01:33 pm
Quote from: Matt2112 on August 04, 2019, 02:28:32 amI don't think they're mutually exclusive, Rob.  She's attracting votes.

I voted remain on balance, but the prevailing vote was for leave. So as far as I'm concerned, we leave, and that is that.

Swinson is an extreme remainer only because she knows it gets votes from a deeply resentful 48%; otherwise, the LDs would be toast.

And I take no pleasure from any of it pal.
Fair comment mate.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 18, 2019, 13:24:56 pm
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-hospital-nhs-brexit-parent-whipps-cross-university-london-a9110161.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-hospital-nhs-brexit-parent-whipps-cross-university-london-a9110161.html)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: The Letter R on September 20, 2019, 09:30:05 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on September 18, 2019, 13:24:56 pmhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-hospital-nhs-brexit-parent-whipps-cross-university-london-a9110161.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-hospital-nhs-brexit-parent-whipps-cross-university-london-a9110161.html)
I'm no big fan of Boris but it is now known this man is a Labour activist - he has even posted as much online.
Seems like they were both looking for a press opportunity........
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on September 24, 2019, 12:17:02 pm
Faith restored in the UK's unwritten constitution.

Boris Johnson's status as a lying charlatan confirmed by the highest court in  the land.

What will the pm do now. Surely not the decent and correct thing and resign?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: The Letter R on September 24, 2019, 14:43:21 pm
Quote from: döm on September 24, 2019, 12:17:02 pmFaith restored in the UK's unwritten constitution.

Boris Johnson's status as a lying charlatan confirmed by the highest court in  the land.

What will the pm do now. Surely not the decent and correct thing and resign?
Well ( and I'm not supporting him here ) but he has tried to get an election called but the errr "opposition" not actually sure who this is now though refused - maybe JC will grow some balls at his conference .........
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on September 24, 2019, 15:43:50 pm
Quote from: The Letter R on September 24, 2019, 14:43:21 pmWell ( and I'm not supporting him here ) but he has tried to get an election called but the errr "opposition" not actually sure who this is now though refused - maybe JC will grow some balls at his conference .........
Just like prorogation his call for an election was simply a device to get a no deal brexit through the back door. Parliament saw through this and acted accordingly.

An General Election will happen but only when Brexit has been sorted or paused to allow it to take place.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 24, 2019, 20:00:01 pm
Quote from: The Letter R on September 24, 2019, 14:43:21 pmWell ( and I'm not supporting him here ) but he has tried to get an election called but the errr "opposition" not actually sure who this is now though refused - maybe JC will grow some balls at his conference .........
half true!

There is no mandate for WTO brexit, which is what parliament were stopping.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on September 24, 2019, 20:23:16 pm
Quote from: döm on September 24, 2019, 15:43:50 pmJust like prorogation his call for an election was simply a device to get a no deal brexit through the back door. 
In your opinion. Who knows the inner machinations of the mind of Europhile Boris.


QuoteParliament saw through this and acted accordingly.

Just as it is my opinion that Parliament is trying to stop Brexit, an act that goes against the biggest FACT in this whole saga - the people voted to leave.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on September 24, 2019, 20:57:38 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on September 24, 2019, 20:23:16 pmIn your opinion. Who knows the inner machinations of the mind of Europhile Boris.


Just as it is my opinion that Parliament is trying to stop Brexit, an act that goes against the biggest FACT in this whole saga - the people voted to leave.
How many voted to leave without a deal?

We'll never know but its safe to assume it would be a log less than 17 million
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nick on September 24, 2019, 21:25:36 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on September 24, 2019, 20:23:16 pmIn your opinion. Who knows the inner machinations of the mind of Europhile Boris.


Just as it is my opinion that Parliament is trying to stop Brexit, an act that goes against the biggest FACT in this whole saga - the people voted to leave.
11-0 you lost get over it.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on September 24, 2019, 21:43:01 pm
Quote from: döm on September 24, 2019, 12:17:02 pmWhat will the pm do now. Surely not the decent and correct thing and resign?
Corbyn has done things a lot worse than what Boris has, but he won't resign.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on September 24, 2019, 21:46:44 pm
Quote from: döm on September 24, 2019, 20:57:38 pmHow many voted to leave without a deal?


How many times do you want telling that there were no options to vote for a deal or not! It was LEAVE or REMAIN!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 00:39:14 am
Quote from: zoony on September 24, 2019, 21:46:44 pmHow many times do you want telling that there were no options to vote for a deal or not! It was LEAVE or REMAIN!
...and "WTO" was not on the table.

Norway, switzerland, stay in single market were the options and they were going to be the easiest deals in the world. That is what we were told, rewriting history does not make it true.

No deal is a joke any way, because you leave on wto terms then negotiate a deal in an even weaker position.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 00:44:42 am
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on September 24, 2019, 20:23:16 pmJust as it is my opinion that Parliament is trying to stop Brexit, an act that goes against the biggest FACT in this whole saga - the people voted to leave.
Did they, what deal did they vote for? Do you know the minds 17.4 million people?

Get a deal and put it to the people. The deal that will be put forward was not the deal during the referendum, you want democracy, that would be the most democratic option.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 00:45:55 am
Quote from: zoony on September 24, 2019, 21:43:01 pmCorbyn has done things a lot worse than what Boris has, but he won't resign.
Gawd what a dreadful man.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 00:48:19 am
Boris is fulfilling all my expectations of his suitability to be PM. I've said I'll reserve final judgement until 1st November but it's looking less and less like it will be a surprise to me.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 00:53:04 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 00:44:42 amGet a deal and put it to the people. The deal that will be put forward was not the deal during the referendum, you want democracy, that would be the most democratic option.
I see nothing wrong with that, rufus. Two options on the paper:
Deal or No Deal. That respects the result of the referendum.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 00:56:11 am
He said "I don't agree with the judgement"

No you don't like the judgement, you have to agree with it and open parliament.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 00:57:21 am
Quote from: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 00:53:04 amI see nothing wrong with that, rufus. Two options on the paper:
Deal or No Deal. That respects the result of the referendum.
No deal was not an option during the referendum dear boy catch up
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 01:02:56 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 00:57:21 amNo deal was not an option during the referendum dear boy catch up
Leave the EU was and Leave the EU won...no mention of deals. Whilst you think we are stupid, I'm sure you don't think the EU is. Why would they agree a deal for the UK that was an attractive option if they knew Remain was an option?
That's a rigged vote....and you know it.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 01:14:53 am
You said you were stupid I possible could not comment?! hehehehe

There were plenty of mentions of deals, Norway, Switzerland, stay in single market stay in customs union, etc

You agree no deal and leaving the EU is bad. Worse than remaining you see. If you want to stay out of the EU for 40 years leavers need to bring remain voters on to leaves side, taking remain off the table will just antagonise remain voters and we will rejoin the EU in 10 years.

Lets take this over to the brexit page david? otherwise we are going to be in trouble and we will get voted against by 11 supreme administrators!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on September 25, 2019, 01:24:48 am
Quote from: zoony on September 24, 2019, 21:46:44 pmHow many times do you want telling that there were no options to vote for a deal or not! It was LEAVE or REMAIN!
And that's why the country is in such a catastrophic mess today.

Such a blunt instrument for such a complex procedure
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 08:00:11 am
Quote from: döm on September 25, 2019, 01:24:48 amAnd that's why the country is in such a catastrophic mess today.

Such a blunt instrument for such a complex procedure
Not a procedure...a choice. Do you grapple with the complexities of how a party will enact their manifesto at a GE?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on September 25, 2019, 10:06:49 am
Quote from: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 08:00:11 amNot a procedure...a choice. Do you grapple with the complexities of how a party will enact their manifesto at a GE?

Don't be so naive/duplicitous, the 'vote' was only the initial part of the massively complex process of Leaving
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 10:45:21 am
Quote from: Bisto on September 25, 2019, 10:06:49 amDon't be so naive/duplicitous, the 'vote' was only the initial part of the massively complex process of Leaving
As opposed to the simple process of running a country?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 11:06:58 am
Quote from: Bisto on September 25, 2019, 10:06:49 amDon't be so naive/duplicitous, the 'vote' was only the initial part of the massively complex process of Leaving
I agree. There was no plan during the referendum, any ideas Leave had were either lies or unable to be enacted. They therefore won the referendum with false pretences.

.'. The only way out of this is to get a deal (maybe TMs deal) and put it to the people; and if that deal wins the government will then negotiate a final deal and that need to go back to the people also against remain.

Leave keep going on about bringing democracy home, lets do it.

Democracy can not be based on lies.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 11:32:05 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 11:06:58 amI agree. There was no plan during the referendum, any ideas Leave had were either lies or unable to be enacted. They therefore won the referendum with false pretences.



Democracy can not be based on lies.
Remain lost the referendum with false pretences
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on September 25, 2019, 11:39:50 am
Quote from: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 11:32:05 amRemain lost the referendum with false pretences
What is the bigger Lie. We had a referendum apparently about bringing democracy home and both sides lied! This shows the UK is broken.

The Lie about the referendum is that imo most people were not upset with the EU but were upset with the UK government. The Uk government have blamed the EU for UKs own failing......ie austerity

David you can not/ have not come up with a law you do not like the EU have have made. Remember we have only voted against 2% of all UK laws since 1999.

Better take this to brexit page.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on September 25, 2019, 11:58:36 am
Quote from: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 11:32:05 amRemain lost the referendum with false pretences
fecksake! Really?!

'He hit me first!'..../...."you are False News"

This is what pisses me off about so many Brexiters....get  the bigger fecking picture already!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on September 25, 2019, 12:56:25 pm
Quote from: Bisto on September 25, 2019, 11:58:36 amfecksake! Really?!

'He hit me first!'..../...."you are False News"

This is what pisses me off about so many Brexiters....get  the bigger fecking picture already!
I hear a cage a rattlin'   ;D ;D
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on September 29, 2019, 11:56:40 am
From preparing "to die in a ditch" rather than stay in the EU after Oct 31st this morning he has said that he's not even prepared to resign

A major climb down incoming?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on September 29, 2019, 19:48:48 pm
Calls for inquiry into claims Johnson backers benefit from no-deal Brexit
Cabinet secretary urged to look into conflict of interest fears raised by Philip Hammond and Rachel Johnson
Michael Savage (https://www.theguardian.com/profile/michael-savage) Policy editor The Guardian
Sat 28 Sep 2019 12.06 EDT

The UK's most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson's financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister's willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson's acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/philip-hammond-radical-tory-advisers-want-no-deal-brexit) was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister's own party.

Hammond said he was repeating a comment made last week by Rachel Johnson, the prime minister's sister.
The former chancellor was accused by senior Tories of attempting a "smear" without evidence. However, Hammond was supported on Saturday by a series of MPs from across the Commons.
"Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit - and there is only one option that works for them: a crash-out no-deal that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring," Hammond wrote in the Times.
Downing Street has refused to comment on the claim.

Guto Bebb, a former Tory minister who was thrown out of the party for opposing a no-deal Brexit, said: "The dubious financiers who supported the 'leave' campaign and the prime minister's leadership campaign are betting against Britain. The PM should put the interests of the country first rather than facilitating a financial bonanza for a few."
Anna Soubry, the leader of Change UK, said: "This week's events are damning evidence that Boris Johnson has no moral compass. It gives me no pleasure to believe that Johnson is in hock to all manner of people and in particular those who don't give a toss about the livelihoods of our constituents but simply get even more rich gambling on our children's future."
However, the business minister Nadhim Zahawi said Hammond was peddling a conspiracy. "Philip you let yourself down by claiming speculators on 'no deal' are interfering in us leaving the EU," he tweeted. "This is an ugly smear that is completely untrue. If you know anything about finance or the City then you will know that."

Hammond and his team have not named any individual donors. However, hedge fund managers have backed Johnson. One of those is Crispin Odey, a fund manager who has also previously backed Vote Leave and Ukip. Over the summer, it was reported that his fund had made a £300m bet against British businesses and stood to profit from an economic slump in the UK. However, the fund also backed other British companies. Odey did not respond to a request for comment.
McDonnell said: "Given widespread concerns raised by the former chancellor Philip Hammond's comment today about Johnson's speculator sponsors profiteering from a no-deal Brexit, I am writing to Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, to seek a Cabinet Office investigation into this potential conflict of interest."
The conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons states: "Given that service in parliament is a public trust ... members are expected ... to fulfil their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each member and in the House of Commons."
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on November 11, 2019, 01:03:25 am
Quote from: Matt2112 on August 02, 2019, 10:40:03 amJames Cleverly's sour grapes this morning where he described the LD's "dirty back-room deals" may come back to haunt him when the backlash comes and the Tories make a pact with Farage.  Ah, so that will be alright, then, Mr Cleverly.

This hasn't aged well.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on November 11, 2019, 01:04:28 am
Quote from: Bisto on September 25, 2019, 10:06:49 amDon't be so naive/duplicitous, the 'vote' was only the initial part of the massively complex process of Leaving
Yes. But it was unambiguous.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on November 11, 2019, 01:04:54 am
Quote from: Bisto on September 29, 2019, 19:48:48 pmCalls for inquiry into claims Johnson backers benefit from no-deal Brexit
Cabinet secretary urged to look into conflict of interest fears raised by Philip Hammond and Rachel Johnson
Michael Savage (https://www.theguardian.com/profile/michael-savage) Policy editor The Guardian
Sat 28 Sep 2019 12.06 EDT

The UK's most senior civil servant is under pressure to investigate Boris Johnson's financial backers following cross-party claims that unnamed individuals stand to benefit from the prime minister's willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Mark Sedwill, asking if there may be a conflict of interest in Johnson's acceptance of support from hedge funds that could gain from an economic shock.
Earlier on Saturday, Philip Hammond, the former chancellor, suggested Johnson (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/philip-hammond-radical-tory-advisers-want-no-deal-brexit) was pursuing the interests of financial backers set to gain from a no-deal Brexit, in a major escalation of tensions in the prime minister's own party.

Hammond said he was repeating a comment made last week by Rachel Johnson, the prime minister's sister.
The former chancellor was accused by senior Tories of attempting a "smear" without evidence. However, Hammond was supported on Saturday by a series of MPs from across the Commons.
"Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit - and there is only one option that works for them: a crash-out no-deal that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring," Hammond wrote in the Times.
Downing Street has refused to comment on the claim.

Guto Bebb, a former Tory minister who was thrown out of the party for opposing a no-deal Brexit, said: "The dubious financiers who supported the 'leave' campaign and the prime minister's leadership campaign are betting against Britain. The PM should put the interests of the country first rather than facilitating a financial bonanza for a few."
Anna Soubry, the leader of Change UK, said: "This week's events are damning evidence that Boris Johnson has no moral compass. It gives me no pleasure to believe that Johnson is in hock to all manner of people and in particular those who don't give a toss about the livelihoods of our constituents but simply get even more rich gambling on our children's future."
However, the business minister Nadhim Zahawi said Hammond was peddling a conspiracy. "Philip you let yourself down by claiming speculators on 'no deal' are interfering in us leaving the EU," he tweeted. "This is an ugly smear that is completely untrue. If you know anything about finance or the City then you will know that."

Hammond and his team have not named any individual donors. However, hedge fund managers have backed Johnson. One of those is Crispin Odey, a fund manager who has also previously backed Vote Leave and Ukip. Over the summer, it was reported that his fund had made a £300m bet against British businesses and stood to profit from an economic slump in the UK. However, the fund also backed other British companies. Odey did not respond to a request for comment.
McDonnell said: "Given widespread concerns raised by the former chancellor Philip Hammond's comment today about Johnson's speculator sponsors profiteering from a no-deal Brexit, I am writing to Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, to seek a Cabinet Office investigation into this potential conflict of interest."
The conflict of interest code for members of the House of Commons states: "Given that service in parliament is a public trust ... members are expected ... to fulfil their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each member and in the House of Commons."

Oh dear! This one aged rather badly, as well.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on November 11, 2019, 01:22:32 am
Quote from: Slim on November 11, 2019, 01:03:25 amThis hasn't aged well.
Three months is a long time in politics.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on November 11, 2019, 12:56:22 pm
Quote from: Slim on November 11, 2019, 01:04:54 amOh dear! This one aged rather badly, as well.
I think you will find it slowly builds a picture of a man that is corrupt, lies all the time, does know his own facts and useless at his job.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on November 11, 2019, 21:09:10 pm
Quote from: Matt2112 on November 11, 2019, 01:22:32 amThree months is a long time in politics.
It is. But truth has a timeless quality :)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on November 12, 2019, 19:50:11 pm
Quote from: Slim on November 11, 2019, 21:09:10 pmIt is. But truth has a timeless quality :)
Yep!  Like hindsight. :)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on November 15, 2019, 12:32:39 pm
Well - an observation about foresight might be more apt to this discussion. And if you'd asked me three months ago, I would have told you you were wrong.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on November 15, 2019, 17:18:43 pm
Quote from: Slim on November 11, 2019, 21:09:10 pmIt is. But truth has a timeless quality :)
Boris and truth don't go in the same sentence.

Maybe Liar and boris works better. But you're from Faridge/ERG hq and there is no point in arguing with you. You would argue black is white to support him.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on November 16, 2019, 13:13:50 pm
Quote from: Slim on November 15, 2019, 12:32:39 pmWell - an observation about foresight might be more apt to this discussion. And if you'd asked me three months ago, I would have told you you were wrong.
But not why? Right, so with a little shifting of the  goal posts, you're crediting yourself with astute foresight...post hoc. Hmmm.

And what to make of the Telegraph report yesterday that - I stress, reportedly - the very thing I foresaw was being put into motion?  Sure, it may be just paper talk - what we know though is that your mate Nige has unilaterally enacted what amounts to a pact.

So, not so cut and dried I'd suggest; I reckon I was detecting the scent of something not radically dissimilar to what's being played out.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on November 19, 2019, 00:25:28 am
If anyone is interested in keeping tabs on how often Boris Johnson lies (clue, very) this is an excellent website.  The sickening thing is how often he goes unchallenged.

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on November 19, 2019, 00:56:48 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on November 15, 2019, 17:18:43 pmBoris and truth don't go in the same sentence.

Maybe Liar and boris works better. But you're from Faridge/ERG hq and there is no point in arguing with you. You would argue black is white to support him.
You aren't capable of forming a sensible, considered opinion, Rufus. That's all you're telling us here, apart from the fact that you can't spell.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on November 19, 2019, 01:08:14 am
Quote from: döm on November 19, 2019, 00:25:28 amIf anyone is interested in keeping tabs on how often Boris Johnson lies (clue, very) this is an excellent website.  The sickening thing is how often he goes unchallenged.

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

Some of these are self-evidently true, others are legitimate opinions that the editor of this site may unwisely disagree with, but are certainly not "lies".

If you take this site seriously, you've been lied to. And clearly, it's worked.

This one is the most laughable distortion, I think:

"Parliament refused finally to give approval for us to come out on October 31 which was a great disappointment"

Facts

Parliament did not refuse to give final approval to the UK leaving the EU on 31 October. It voted to approve (https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-10-22/debates/277C5A20-456D-469B-A415-D04AFFD83248/EuropeanUnion(WithdrawalAgreement)Bill) the second reading of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill. It rejected (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-10-22/debates/277C5A20-456D-469B-A415-D04AFFD83248/EuropeanUnion(WithdrawalAgreement)Bill#contribution-9FF7D3B1-6491-4922-A12F-2352FB53153B) the government's programme motion on the grounds that parliament would only have three days to debate the bill. It was the prime minister who took the decision (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/28/boris-johnson-abandons-brexit-bill-in-new-push-for-december-election) to pause and then abandon the bill. Parliament had no opportunity to give final approval to the bill.

Verdict

The prime minister's statement was a lie.


That's absolute bollocks as you must surely know. Parliament knew full well that it was obstructing the UK from leaving the EU on 31st October. It had pretended to be afraid of a no deal Brexit, and it demonstrated that it was afraid of a deal as well.

All you're doing is demonstrating the depths of dishonestly that the Prime Minister's laughing stock detractors have to stoop to to try to call his integrity into question, a gutter tactic.

I read a few more. The one about Corbyn and the Novichok attack is hilarious; no sane person would believe the spin they put on that. Desperate stuff.

But I'm pleased and proud to be reminded that people like this are frightened of a Conservative government and an effective Conservative leader.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on November 20, 2019, 16:46:59 pm
Quote from: Slim on November 19, 2019, 01:08:14 amThat's absolute bollocks as you must surely know. Parliament knew full well that it was obstructing the UK from leaving the EU on 31st October. It had pretended to be afraid of a no deal Brexit, and it demonstrated that it was afraid of a deal as well.
Of course you will give evidence of this?


Parliament voted to scrutinise BJ's deal - fact. BJ did not want parliament to scrutinise the deal because it was a bad deal, worse than TM's with a border down the Irish sea. I thought Brexit was about the UK parliament taking back control. Or what you are really meaning is that Parliament should do what Slims thinks it should do.

So the web site is correct and you are wrong again.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on November 28, 2019, 14:57:46 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on November 20, 2019, 16:46:59 pmOf course you will give evidence of this?


Parliament voted to scrutinise BJ's deal - fact. BJ did not want parliament to scrutinise the deal because it was a bad deal, worse than TM's with a border down the Irish sea. I thought Brexit was about the UK parliament taking back control. Or what you are really meaning is that Parliament should do what Slims thinks it should do.

So the web site is correct and you are wrong again.

Needless to say, it is you who are wrong. But at least you're consistent.

The evidence is in the news, and in Parliament's actions. Parliament voted to delay the Prime Minister's deal. This was clearly a deliberate tactic to frustrate Brexit yet again - hitherto the excuse had been that Parliament was afraid of a "no deal" Brexit.

Hilarious that you think that opposition parties that had already stated unequivocally that they would reject the deal wanted to "scrutinise" it. Incredibly funny that you think that parties who by that time had sworn to frustrate any sort of Brexit, at any cost, wanted to "scrutinise" a bill to leave the EU. What they would actually have done was to amend the bill until it was no longer acceptable to the government, and no longer a viable vehicle to leave the EU.

You're easy game for them, Rufus. Too easy.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on December 02, 2019, 10:46:24 am
You want BJs deal more than TMs deal. BJs deal is worse than TMs. BJs deal breaks up the UK. weird.

and you do not want parliament to scrutinise the deal put forward. I see, you do not want parliament then you want a dictatorship. 

So what if parliament frustrates bjs deal. You want UK parliament to rule the UK and that is what they are doing. They hold government to account. The problem with Thatcher Blair governments they were able to whip policy without any proper scrutiny and so making very bad policy.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 02, 2019, 12:55:38 pm
The Guardian

Boris Johnson still not agreeing to Andrew Neil interview
PM said he was 'perfectly happy' to be questioned but has not set date for appearance


Jim Waterston Media Editor
Sun 1 Dec 2019 15.29 GMTLast modified on Sun 1 Dec 2019 15.32 GMT

There is no sign that BORIS JOHNSON will agree to an interview with Andrew Neil before the end of the election campaign, with both the BBC and the Conservatives simply saying that negotiations are ongoing.
With little over a week until polling day, the prime minister has still not set a date for his one-on-one interview on primetime television, despite every other party leader agreeing to take part.
On Friday the BBC insisted it would not allow Johnson to appear on its flagship politics programmes until
 he had agreed a time to sit down with Neil, only to relent following the London Bridge terror attack (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/nov/30/bbc-allows-boris-johnson-interview-on-andrew-marr-show) on the basis that the country should hear from its prime minister during a time of crisis.

Johnson duly appeared on Sunday's edition of  (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/01/boris-johnson-blames-labour-for-release-of-london-bridge-killer-usman-khan)The Andrew Marr Show (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/01/boris-johnson-blames-labour-for-release-of-london-bridge-killer-usman-khan), where he insisted he was "perfectly happy to be interviewed by any interviewer called Andrew from the BBC" but there is still no confirmed date for the programme, with only a handful of potential slots available before polls open next Thursday.
Neil, who used to be Johnson's boss (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-interview-andrew-neil-i-dont-think-the-spectator-has-had-a-boss-for-the-last-two-years-5544522.html) at the Spectator, is perceived as one of the BBC's toughest political interviewers. His head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/26/corbyn-resists-calls-to-apologies-to-british-jews-after-rabbis-claims) created days of negative headlines for Labour over antisemitism and funding for Labour's spending plans.

Corbyn's team are furious that Johnson appears to be trying to avoid being put under similar scrutiny, insisting they were assured the prime minister had signed up for a similar interview before agreeing to put up their candidate. BBC (https://www.theguardian.com/media/bbc) sources strongly insist they never told Labour the prime minister was definitely confirmed before Corbyn's appearance.

News websites such as MailOnline, which had taken the prime minister's comments as confirmation that he would definitely be interviewed by Neil, were contacted by the Conservatives and have now toned down their headlines (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7743319/Boris-Johnson-finally-commits-election-interview-Andrew-Neil.html). Both the Conservatives and the BBC have played down any chance of the interview being confirmed imminently.
A BBC spokesperson reiterated its stance that it urged "Boris Johnson to take part in the prime-time Andrew Neil (https://www.theguardian.com/media/andrew-neil) interview as other leaders have done".
Although the prime minister's appearances on Marr will have reached millions of people, a primetime weeknight interview with Neil would attract a substantially higher audience. But with the Lib Dem leader, Jo Swinson, scheduled to be interviewed by Neil on Wednesday night, and the Brexit party's Nigel Farage on Thursday, there are just three slots available for the prime minister to appear next week.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 02, 2019, 13:02:54 pm
Boris Johnsonb blames Labour for release of London Bridge killer
PM says it is 'ridiculous' that terrorist Usman Khan - freed from jail in 2018 - got out early

Peter Walker Political Correspondent
 @peterwalker99 (https://twitter.com/peterwalker99)
Sun 1 Dec 2019 12.28 GMTLast modified on Sun 1 Dec 2019 23.34 GMT

Boris Johnson has sought to blame Labour for the release of Usman Khan, the convicted terrorist who murdered two people on London Bridge on Friday, as the aftermath of the attack became an increasingly politicised election issue.
In an interview on BBC One's The Andrew Marr Show
 the prime minister said it was "ridiculous" that someone such as Khan should have been freed midway through an earlier sentence, and pledged to change the law.

He said: "The reason this killer was out on the streets was because of automatic early release which was brought in by a leftie government."
But challenged on the role of cuts to police, probation services and the judicial system under 10 years of Conservative rule, Johnson repeatedly sought to separate himself from this, and present his government as entirely separate.
"I've only been in office for 120 days," he said. Asked by Marr about decisions on public spending taken since 2010, Johnson replied: "I'm a new prime minister. We take a different approach."
In the interview Johnson repeatedly sought to make political capital over the attack by Khan, who was freed under licence a year ago after being jailed for his part in an al-Qaida-inspired bombing plot. Khan stabbed two people to death before being shot dead by police.
"I think it is ridiculous, I think it is repulsive, that individuals as dangerous as this man should be allowed out after serving only eight years and that's why we are going to change the law," Johnson told Marr.
He blamed the previous Labour government for the decision: "His release was necessary under the law because of the automatic early release scheme under which he was sentenced, that was the reality, and that was brought in by Labour with the support of Jeremy Corbyn and the rest of the Labour party."
The reality of the case is more complex (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/01/khan-attack-will-put-sentencing-and-release-of-terrorists-under-scrutiny). Khan was jailed in 2012 under an an indeterminate public protection sentence (IPP), a system scrapped under the coalition the same year. But an appeal in 2013 saw the sentence replaced by one of 16 years, and he was freed after serving just under half.
Since the attack, Johnson has pledged to end early release for people convicted of terrorism.
The father of the first of Khan's victims to be named, Jack Merritt, who worked to help rehabilitate prisoners, has said that his son (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/01/london-bridge-attack-victim-jack-merritt-tributes) "would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or for detaining people unnecessarily".
Johnson told Marr there were "probably about 74" convicted terrorists who had now been freed, saying these would be "properly invigilated to make sure there is no threat".
Speaking earlier on Sky News, Jeremy Corbyn argued that a better approach (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/01/jeremy-corbyn-calls-for-focus-on-rehabilitation-of-terrorists-in-prison) would be to focus more on prison services, and the parole and rehabilitation help prisoners receive when they leave.
Asked by Marr whether he should apologise for cuts to probation services, Johnson said: "Obviously, I think we should be investing more in the criminal justice system."
Asked why the Conservatives had not done this during their time in office, Johnson said his government was "new in our approach, and it's new in the way we will tackle issues of public services".

Questioned about the closure of nearly 300 magistrates and crown courts since 2010, he replied: "We of course understand, now is the time to make investments not just in the NHS, not just in policing, not just in education, but in our criminal justice system."
During an often combative interview, which saw Marr repeatedly interrupt the prime minister to ask him to address the question asked, Johnson gave ground on several issues, accepting that 40 promised new hospitals (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/29/from-40-hospitals-to-six-tories-nhs-numbers-dont-add-up) were not as yet fully funded.
"Of course not, but you don't commit seed money unless you have a convincing case and a rationale for building that hospital, and you're determined to go on and do it," he said.
Johnson also conceded that though he had entered No 10 promising to tackle the social care crisis, the Conservative manifesto contained few details of how this would be done. "I accept that the full plan needs to be developed," he said.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on December 02, 2019, 17:12:50 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on December 02, 2019, 10:46:24 amBJs deal breaks up the UK. weird.


Nothing wrong with that.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 02, 2019, 23:26:50 pm
Quote from: zoony on December 02, 2019, 17:12:50 pmNothing wrong with that.
Slippery slope.....England is already fragmented politically, economically, culturally, socially and by religion...where do you draw the line? If the entire Union where to break up the pressure for a United Ireland would be overwhelming..which would inevitably lead to a resumption of full scale hostilities...the North/South divide in England would become even more stark...the rural economies and infrastructures would be decimated leading to inevitable mass urban and National migration from what are now the home nations to England and all that it would lead to.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 04, 2019, 21:35:36 pm
Boris Johnson claimed children of working mothers 'more likely to mug you'
Exclusive: PM made comments about low-income families in 2006 collection of essays


Heather Stewart Political editor
Wed 4 Dec 2019 08.57 EST

Boris Johnson made claims that children of working mothers in low-income families were "unloved and undisciplined" and more likely to "mug you on the street corner", it has emerged.

In a 2006 collection of journalism, entitled Have I Got Views for You, Johnson bemoaned the increasing tendency of women to work, saying they had been "socially gestapoed into the workplace".
"In the last 30 years an ever-growing proportion of British women have been 'incentivised' or socially gestapoed into the workplace, on what seems to me to be the dubious assumption that the harder a woman works the happier she will be, when I am not sure that is true of women or anyone else," he wrote.

In the book, published before he became mayor of London, Johnson said an increasing number of female graduates tended to pair up with male graduates - a process known by economists as "assortative mating" - and that they then pool their advantages.

"The result is that in families on lower incomes the women have absolutely no choice but to work, often with adverse consequences for family life and society as a whole - in that unloved and undisciplined children are more likely to become hoodies, Neets [not in education, employment or training] and mug you on the street corner."



Labour seized on the remarks. The shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner, herself a working mother, said: "It is obvious that Boris Johnson has nothing but contempt for women and working-class people.

"For him to speak about us in such a disgusting manner shows just how out of touch he is. It is clear he only ever stands up for the privileged few."



The remarks were the latest that have come to light during the election campaign, as the prime minister's attitudes, including to migrants and low-income households, as well as women, have come under scrutiny.

The book's title is a play on Have I Got News For You, the satirical BBC quiz show that Johnson appeared on several times, helping to build his public profile outside Westminster.



In his introduction to the collection, which is laced with anecdotes about his time as Brussels correspondent for the Telegraph, he says of his journalism: "You may sometimes think that's not how it is. But never mind, buster: this is how I see it."



He has repeatedly been challenged during the campaign about his past remarks - including on a special edition of the BBC's Question Time, which saw audience members press him about whether some of his writings had fuelled racism.



In past columns for the Daily Telegraph, which paid him £275,000 a year for his work until he became prime minister, Johnson said Muslim women wearing the burqa looked like "letterboxes". He has also been criticised in the past for using the phrases, "piccaninnies," and "watermelon smiles" (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/07/boris-johnson-history-of-apologies-controversy-burqa-comments).

"Racist rhetoric is completely rife in this country, will you admit that you have personally contributed to this, and say the words: 'I'm sorry'," the questioner asked.

Johnson replied that he had, "genuinely never intended to cause hurt or pain to anybody and that is my intention." But he went on to defend his right to "speak out".

"If you go through all my articles with a fine-tooth comb and take out individual phrases there is no doubt that you can find things that can be made to seem offensive and of course I understand that," he said.




Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 04, 2019, 21:40:14 pm
Johnson accused of racial stereotyping with view on Nigerians
Exclusive: prime minister made comment on people's 'interest in money' in a Spectator column


Josh Halliday (https://www.theguardian.com/profile/josh-halliday) and Joe Goodman
Thu 28 Nov 2019 08.29 GMTFirst published on Thu 28 Nov 2019 06.00 GMT

Boris Johnson (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/boris-johnson) has been accused of pushing racial stereotypes over a newly-unearthed column written during his time as editor of the Spectator in which he said young people had "an almost Nigerian interest in money".
The prime minister has been under pressure in recent months over a series of comments he made during his career as a columnist, writer and editor, including referring to black people as "piccaninnies (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/07/boris-johnson-history-of-apologies-controversy-burqa-comments)" with  (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/07/boris-johnson-history-of-apologies-controversy-burqa-comments)"watermelon smiles" (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/07/boris-johnson-history-of-apologies-controversy-burqa-comments) and arguing Islam has caused the Muslim world to be "literally centuries behind" the west (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/boris-johnson-islam-muslim-world-centuries-behind-2007-essay).

In another column which has come to light, Johnson blamed single mothers for "producing a generation of ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children", saying that social housing was an enticement for them to become pregnant.
The new columns emerged after the chancellor, Sajid Javid, refused seven times (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/26/javid-refuses-to-condemn-pms-slurs-against-muslim-women) to say whether he would use the terms "bank robber" or "letterbox" to describe Muslim women who wear a burqa, as Johnson did last year.
The Conservative party leader wrote in a diary piece for the Independent on Sunday in October 1999 that Tony Blair had made people feel good about getting rich.
He added: "All the young people I know - ie those under 30 - are just as avaricious as we flinty Thatcherite yuppies of the 1980s in fact, they have an almost Nigerian interest in money and gadgets of all kinds."
Weyman Bennett, the co-convenor of Stand Up to Racism, described Johnson's words as "deeply racist and offensive". He told the Guardian: "This can be added to the 'piccaninnies' and 'watermelon smiles' (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/07/boris-johnson-history-of-apologies-controversy-burqa-comments), the abject refusal to properly apologise and change his behaviour around racism.

"Boris Johnson is unfit to be a prime minister that represents the entire United Kingdom. He had demonstrated this by lying and falsely representing black, Asian and different communities inside this country.
"This is deeply offensive and unforgivable and should not be ignored and he should be held to account."
In the column on single mothers, published in the Spectator in 1995, Johnson wrote that "uppity and irresponsible women" had a "natural desire to have babies" and that ways must be found to ensure they married.


Arguing that social housing available to single mothers was "an enticement", Johnson said "no government - and certainly no Labour government - will have the courage to make the cuts in the safety net of the viciousness required to provide anything like such a deterrent".


Labour said the comments followed a pattern of sexist and misogynistic words and behaviour by Johnson. Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, said: "These unearthed comments further reveal Boris Johnson's contempt for women and families, as he hypocritically attacks what he appallingly describes as 'illegitimate' children."


In the past 24 hours both major parties have been criticised for their handling of race issues. The Muslim Council of Britain accused the Conservative party of "denial, dismissal and deceit" over the issue of Islamophobia on Tuesday, saying the party had a "blind spot for this type of racism". On Wednesday Johnson apologised for Islamophobia (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/27/boris-johnson-says-sorry-for-hurt-caused-by-islamophobia-within-conservative-party) within the Conservative party.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 06, 2019, 00:57:46 am
Daily Mirror

Boris Johnson skewered as Phillip Schofield reveals US firms already target NHS

"You're already doing it" - The Tory leader squirmed as the This Morning host reeled off a list of NHS services where US firms are already involved

BY MIKEY SMITH


Boris Johnson was forced to squirm as This Morning host Phillip Schofield reeled off a list of NHS services where US firms have already bought in. The Tory leader repeated his claim that the Health Service would not be on the table in any trade talks with the United States after Brexit But he looked to his feet, shifting his weight on the This Morning sofa, as the broadcaster listed a string of US interests in the NHS - declaring: "You're already doing it."

He asked for Mr Johnson's "absolute, rock solid guarantee" that "no part of the NHS will be sold off."Mr Johnson said it would not. Mr Schofield went on: "American companies providing about 13% of in-patient beds in England, Manchester. One in four beds provided by an American-owned company in Bristol, North Somerset, Gloucestershire."

He went on: "Three fifths of mental healthcare beds are owned by American companies. Cygnet runs eight mental health settings judged inadequate by the Care Quality Commission watchdog.

"£13.8 billion was spent on the NHS on mental healthcare. £1.8 billion of this went to private sectors, including American firms.
"You're already doing it."
Mr Johnson replied: "The biggest privatisation of the NHS went under Labour when they put in the PFI scheme. That was in my view - and I go round hospitals which are saddled with debt
"They have to pay back to banks at excruciating rates because of Labour's PFI deals."

While it's true that the Blair Labour government vastly expanded PFI use in the NHS, the claim Labour "put in" the scheme is false. PFI was introduced under John Major's Conservative administration.

But Schofield wasn't done He shot back: "Just this week we heard the story of a schizophrenic man who killed his father days after being mistakenly released from a Cygnet private hospital."
Mr Johnson failed to address the question, saying: "Well, obviously we have challenges with mental health care.

"And the NHS as a whole is doing an amazing job. That's why we want to make sure that we invest massively in mental healthcare as well as physical wellbeing."

This week the Mirror revealed US healthcare firms had been 'planting seeds' in the NHS since 2016.
US President Donald Trump made a visit to London to insist he did not want to prey on our treasured health service
But just six months earlier he boasted that "everything is on the table", including healthcare, during post-Brexit trade talks.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 06, 2019, 10:19:03 am
Well, as part of the EU if an American healthcare firm has a subsidiary in the EU it is perfectly able to tender for and obtain health contracts. And the NHS does such a perfect job doesn't it?

And I'm sure that if people trawl back through all our social utterances they'll find things to "skewer" us with. I'm sure all the x-phobia and x-ism lobbies would find plenty to be offended by from what I've said. Sorry peeps, I just find it hard to like anyone who isn't me.

The trouble today is people go out pf their way to seek offence finding it where it may not have been intended. And having to go back to 1999 to find potentially offensive sayings...

I'm not here to defend BoJo - he's a politician - I'm just pissed off at a world where people twist inoffensive words to suit their own agenda. Wasn't Eamonn Holmes done for saying "Uppity" recently?  I despair.

People have to take more responsibility for themselves and not expect the state to provide everything for them. And people need to "Man Up" more too.

I could rant on and on, but there's no point. It's only me against the world, and nowt to do with yer man Johnson anyway.

We're off to hell in a handcart, the only thing is how quickly.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on December 06, 2019, 12:36:34 pm
To summarise Nick - everything is shit but don't blame Johnson
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 06, 2019, 14:58:26 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 06, 2019, 10:19:03 amWell, as part of the EU if an American healthcare firm has a subsidiary in the EU it is perfectly able to tender for and obtain health contracts. And the NHS does such a perfect job doesn't it?

And I'm sure that if people trawl back through all our social utterances they'll find things to "skewer" us with. I'm sure all the x-phobia and x-ism lobbies would find plenty to be offended by from what I've said. Sorry peeps, I just find it hard to like anyone who isn't me.

The trouble today is people go out pf their way to seek offence finding it where it may not have been intended. And having to go back to 1999 to find potentially offensive sayings...

I'm not here to defend BoJo - he's a politician - I'm just pissed off at a world where people twist inoffensive words to suit their own agenda. Wasn't Eamonn Holmes done for saying "Uppity" recently?  I despair.

People have to take more responsibility for themselves and not expect the state to provide everything for them. And people need to "Man Up" more too.

I could rant on and on, but there's no point. It's only me against the world, and nowt to do with yer man Johnson anyway.

We're off to hell in a handcart, the only thing is how quickly.
The point is that Johnson is a two faced, lieing, cheating c*** who would do and say anything to get his grubby mitts on power (and money); he's a c*** today, he always has been a c*** and always will be a c***. Jacob Rees Mogg is an even bigger hypocritical, religious c***. This country, and the world in general, would be a far better place if they, and all their greedy, selfish, parasitical, power hungry, warmongering, psychopathic Tory/Republican c*** friends were all dead.

Hope I've made myself clear...any offence this may cause is purely intentional...sorry, not sorry.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on December 06, 2019, 16:33:17 pm
Quote from: Bisto on December 06, 2019, 14:58:26 pmThe point is that Johnson is a two faced, lieing, cheating c*** who would do and say anything to get his grubby mitts on power (and money); he's a c*** today, he always has been a c*** and always will be a c***. Jacob Rees Mogg is an even bigger hypocritical, religious c***. This country, and the world in general, would be a far better place if they, and all their greedy, selfish, parasitical, power hungry, warmongering, psychopathic Tory/Republican c*** friends were all dead.

Hope I've made myself clear...any offence this may cause is purely intentional...sorry, not sorry.

Well I think you're taking a very jaundiced view there, and you've taken some opposition propaganda rather more seriously than is probably wise.

But you know what? Even if these claims were true, I'd still rather have Boris in Number 10 than an anti-semitic, dishonest IRA sympathiser with a blinkered, fanatical ideological obsession with the politics of proven failure and a hard on for any fanatical anti-western radical or terrorist group he's ever heard of.

The sort of man whose judgement leads him to appoint Diane Abbott as shadow home secretary, Provo McDonnell as shadow treasurer, and a woman who can barely manage a coherent sentence and left school at 16 with no qualifications as shadow education secretary.

And our world really will be a cleaner place once that piece of shit and his friends are dead.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on December 06, 2019, 19:18:33 pm
Any kind of cabinet that kicks out (me mate) Hilary for being too centrist is one I will in all probability not vote for.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 06, 2019, 19:21:53 pm
Quote from: Matt2112 on December 06, 2019, 19:18:33 pmAny kind of cabinet that kicks out (me mate) Hilary for being too centrist is one I will in all probability not vote for.
Who are you responding to Matt?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on December 06, 2019, 19:34:32 pm
Quote from: Bisto on December 06, 2019, 19:21:53 pmWho are you responding to Matt?
No-one in particular, just following up on James's point about the Shadow Cabinet.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 06, 2019, 20:28:54 pm
Quote from: Bisto on December 06, 2019, 14:58:26 pmThe point is that Johnson is a two faced, lieing, cheating c*** who would do and say anything to get his grubby mitts on power (and money); he's a c*** today, he always has been a c*** and always will be a c***. Jacob Rees Mogg is an even bigger hypocritical, religious c***. This country, and the world in general, would be a far better place if they, and all their greedy, selfish, parasitical, power hungry, warmongering, psychopathic Tory/Republican c*** friends were all dead.

Hope I've made myself clear...any offence this may cause is purely intentional...sorry, not sorry.
In other words he's a politician :)

At least there's an occasional bit of humour - whether intentional or not - about BoJo. If Corbyn and especially his mare McDonnel get in then laughter will be outlawed - and I don't want to be sent to the Gulag.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on December 08, 2019, 09:41:56 am
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 06, 2019, 20:28:54 pmIn other words he's a politician :)

At least there's an occasional bit of humour - whether intentional or not - about BoJo. If Corbyn and especially his mare McDonnel get in then laughter will be outlawed - and I don't want to be sent to the Gulag.
Let me vote for Boris because he is a 3rd rate comedian, that gets my vote  clear thinking.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 08, 2019, 10:11:29 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on December 08, 2019, 09:41:56 amLet me vote for Boris because he is a 3rd rate comedian, that gets my vote  clear thinking.
Better third rate comedian than Marxist. You have to get down to Michael McIntyre level before considering Marxism.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on December 08, 2019, 22:48:00 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 08, 2019, 10:11:29 amBetter third rate comedian than Marxist. You have to get down to Michael McIntyre level before considering Marxism.
Marxist is that bad? Or do you mean socialist?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 08, 2019, 22:54:24 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on December 08, 2019, 22:48:00 pmMarxist is that bad? Or do you mean socialist?
Unless Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo or Gummo Marxist is very bad.

Korbyn [sickbag please] according to the Grauniad is a Marxist. Therefore he's very bad. He also drinks apple juice on Christmas day. This makes him the spawn of Satan. Although not as evil as his sidekick Warden Hodges, he's more evil than BLiar.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/19/marxist-corbyn-revolution-ken-livingstone-labour (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/19/marxist-corbyn-revolution-ken-livingstone-labour)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on December 08, 2019, 22:59:41 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 08, 2019, 22:54:24 pmUnless Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo or Gummo Marxist is very bad.

Korbyn [sickbag please] according to the Grauniad is a Marxist. Therefore he's very bad. He also drinks apple juice on Christmas day. This makes him the spawn of Satan. Although not as evil as his sidekick Warden Hodges, he's more evil than BLiar.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/19/marxist-corbyn-revolution-ken-livingstone-labour (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/19/marxist-corbyn-revolution-ken-livingstone-labour)
but is marxism bad?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bez on December 09, 2019, 08:22:41 am
I've just liked Bisto's post about Boris & Slim's post about Corbyn....

Shows what a mess we're in...
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: captainkurtz on December 09, 2019, 09:09:50 am
I've just liked your post, Bez...lol.

What times...
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bez on December 09, 2019, 09:37:43 am
Quote from: captainkurtz on December 09, 2019, 09:09:50 amI've just liked your post, Bez...lol.

What times...
....and I've just liked your post about liking my post...at least social media is still functioning....
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 09, 2019, 10:03:36 am
Quote from: Bez on December 09, 2019, 09:37:43 amat least social media is still functioning....
More's the pity.

A major cause of the shallowness and infantilism affecting today's world.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on December 09, 2019, 14:12:35 pm
Johnson reallly going for the populist lowest common denominator vote.

EU migrants have been able to treat the country "as if it was their own" for far too long.

Add xenophobe to his long list of faults making him totally incapable of being a leader of the country.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 09, 2019, 14:32:00 pm
Is he buggery a Xenophobe. He's a bloody Turkish immigrant! To moan about immigrants would make him a hypocrite. Oh, wait, he's a politician...

Yes, he's a politician. He's saying to the people what he thinks they want to hear. That's what they do.

The only solution - no Jezza, not the final one - is to write on your voting paper: NONE OF THE BELOW.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on December 09, 2019, 14:35:02 pm
Quote from: döm on December 09, 2019, 14:12:35 pmJohnson reallly going for the populist lowest common denominator vote.

EU migrants have been able to treat the country "as if it was their own" for far too long.

Add xenophobe to his long list of faults making him totally incapable of being a leader of the country.
And this is why we're faced with voting for the least of all evils; Johnson's comments are at best badly-phrased.  But consider that the party against whom he's in a two-horse race have an ongoing serious problem with institutional Anti-Semitism* - it doesn't compare.


* Whether intended or not is not the issue - its the outcome that is.  And as Labour has been saddled with it throughout Corbyn's leadership, accordingly the party and indeed the electorate need to take an honest view on this.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on December 09, 2019, 14:44:22 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 09, 2019, 14:32:00 pmIs he buggery a Xenophobe. He's a bloody Turkish immigrant! To moan about immigrants would make him a hypocrite. Oh, wait, he's a politician...

Yes, he's a politician. He's saying to the people what he thinks they want to hear. That's what they do.

The only solution - no Jezza, not the final one - is to write on your voting paper: NONE OF THE BELOW.
Exactly he's a populist, pandering to the masses.  Saying what he thinks they want to hear
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: captainkurtz on December 09, 2019, 14:44:47 pm
Quote from: Matt2112 on December 09, 2019, 14:35:02 pmAnd this is why we're faced with voting for the least of all evils; Johnson's comments are at best badly-phrased.  But consider that the party against whom he's in a two-horse race have an ongoing serious problem with institutional Anti-Semitism* - it doesn't compare.


* Whether intended or not is not the issue - its the outcome that is.  And as Labour has been saddled with it throughout Corbyn's leadership, accordingly the party and indeed the electorate need to take an honest view on this.
the Uk is divided..as the heart and mind collided, as the people left unguided....LOL

Neither BJ and JC are worthy of a vote....
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on December 09, 2019, 14:47:32 pm
Quote from: Matt2112 on December 09, 2019, 14:35:02 pmAnd this is why we're faced with voting for the least of all evils; Johnson's comments are at best badly-phrased.  But consider that the party against whom he's in a two-horse race have an ongoing serious problem with institutional Anti-Semitism* - it doesn't compare.


* Whether intended or not is not the issue - its the outcome that is.  And as Labour has been saddled with it throughout Corbyn's leadership, accordingly the party and indeed the electorate need to take an honest view on this.
I think the Tory party has just a big a problem with this as the Labour party.  I get the impression that the Jewish community make more of an issue with it when it comes from the Labour party is down to their anti-Israel stance
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on December 10, 2019, 03:41:37 am
Quote from: Matt2112 on December 09, 2019, 14:35:02 pmAnd this is why we're faced with voting for the least of all evils; Johnson's comments are at best badly-phrased.  But consider that the party against whom he's in a two-horse race have an ongoing serious problem with institutional Anti-Semitism* - it doesn't compare.


* Whether intended or not is not the issue - its the outcome that is.  And as Labour has been saddled with it throughout Corbyn's leadership, accordingly the party and indeed the electorate need to take an honest view on this.
The CONservatives have the same amount Anti semitism has the labour party, and the CONservatives have a very serious Islamophobic problem.

Will you be taking an honest view on the Islamophobic Boris Johnson and the conservatives then?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 10, 2019, 11:05:27 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on December 10, 2019, 03:41:37 amThe CONservatives have the same amount Anti semitism has the labour party, and the CONservatives have a very serious Islamophobic problem.

Will you be taking an honest view on the Islamophobic Boris Johnson and the conservatives then?
Quote from: döm on December 09, 2019, 14:47:32 pmI think the Tory party has just a big a problem with this as the Labour party.  I get the impression that the Jewish community make more of an issue with it when it comes from the Labour party is down to their anti-Israel stance


It's clear that there is a politically motivated campaign by The Tories and Conservative and Zionist Jews to discredit Corbyn and paint the Labour party as institutionally anti-Semitic.

Corbyn has publicly stated that he recognises the
rights of both Palestine and Israel states to exist, he's been clear on that, what he opposes is unchecked Zionist expansion and the persecution of the Palestinian people.

According to a survey by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in 2010 on the political leanings of British Jews,.... Jewish men, religious Jews (of both genders), married Jews, self employed Jews and West London and Hertfordshire Jews all tend to be predominantly Tory voters; whereas female Jews, single Jews, employed Jews, East End London Jews and those living in the north of England as well as secular Jews tend to favour Labour.

It would be interesting and, I suspect, very revealing, to discover where most of the complaints of Anti-Semitism come from in light of those demographics.

I'm not saying that Anti Semitism doesn't exist at all within the Labour party, and Corbyn has always said that it has no place within it; but my guess is that there is actually a lot more Anti Zionism (which, imho, is a perfectly legitimate political position to take and not of itself Racist) than actual anti Semitism.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bez on December 11, 2019, 09:06:13 am
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 09, 2019, 10:03:36 amMore's the pity.

A major cause of the shallowness and infantilism affecting today's world.
I'm not disagreeing with that...
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on December 11, 2019, 15:40:06 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on December 10, 2019, 03:41:37 amThe CONservatives have the same amount Anti semitism has the labour party, and the CONservatives have a very serious Islamophobic problem.

Will you be taking an honest view on the Islamophobic Boris Johnson and the conservatives then?
Your first point begs the question why the Tories are not being subject to an independent enquiry into institutional anti-semitism, yet the Labour Party is.

Secondly, anti-semitism and "Islamophobia" are not two sides of the same coin; the former refers to people, the latter to a set of ideas.  Ideas are fair game for a "phobia", a group of people are not.  This is why (as Sajid Javid and reformists like Maajid Nawaz rightly point out) what is correctly called out as anti-Muslim prejudice should not be conflated and confused with accusations of  "Islamophobia".

Bojo infamously referred to niqab-wearing Muslim women as looking like "letterboxes" in the same article in which he endorsed their right to wear such religiously conservative clothing. That position strikes me as actually to the left of Muslim feminists like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who are far more scathing of her counterparts who dress more "modestly".

But, of course, something like that will go unsaid on the far left lest they get into one of their intersectional identity-politics tizzies.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on December 11, 2019, 16:54:14 pm
It's silly to pretend that minor incidents of Islamophobia (which I do take to mean prejudice against Muslim people since that's the accepted definition in common usage, whether logically correct or not) in the Tory party can be compared to the endemic, institutionalised anti-semitism that infests the Labour Party from the bottom right to the top.

Indeed it's exactly the limp-wristed whataboutery response that I hope I debunked in the piece I wrote earlier in the week.

That said, Islamophobia needs to be properly handled and punished wherever it arises, certainly in the Tory Party.

And our Prime Minister's Muslim great-grandfather from Turkey would spin in his grave if it wasn't.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on December 11, 2019, 16:56:04 pm
I agree with most of your post, but clearly there is an Islamophobic problem in the Tory party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/11/tories-open-second-investigation-sally-ann-hart-hastings-candidate (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/11/tories-open-second-investigation-sally-ann-hart-hastings-candidate)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/08/james-cleverly-apologises-over-tory-islamophobia-and-racism-allegations (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/08/james-cleverly-apologises-over-tory-islamophobia-and-racism-allegations)

and I could/can point you lots of these articles about the Tory party. This is not just a labour party problem like the conservatives and parts of the media are making out. BJ did not have to make offensive remarks to make his point, but he does all the time about all sorts of minority groups. Which is part of the whistle blower racism that he is part of and that has been on the rise since the referendum. He has played along with it to muster more support and created and stoked the fire for his own gain. You need to look at the poll I posted up which shows that there is more antisemitism supporters of the conservative party then the labour party. Then you also have wonder why the conservatives are not doing anything for the Palestinian people, which are having their land systematically removed by the Israeli state. Would you allow France to invade parts of Kent? read this https://mondoweiss.net/2019/08/islamophobia-hierarchies-discrimination/ (https://mondoweiss.net/2019/08/islamophobia-hierarchies-discrimination/)

Both are vile and not done in my name, the local conservative, Eton schooled MP was reported to the police the other day for hate crime https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2019/11/29/police-investigating-alleged-hate-crime-over-philip-dunne-turban-remark-to-opponent-kuldip-sahota/ (https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2019/11/29/police-investigating-alleged-hate-crime-over-philip-dunne-turban-remark-to-opponent-kuldip-sahota/) 

Let us not forget that the Conservatives have been part of a much larger problem that we have all forgotten

Windrush, the social clearing of black people out of this country. The conservatives created the hostile environment against so called illegal immigrants back to the Caribbean. The Irony is that one of the arguments for brexit was to have less immigration from the EU and more from the rest of the world.

So can I support either Labour or Conservative - NO,  that is why I want a reset button and I would sack them all and have a completely new system.

sorry this is very rushed tons of spelling mistakes and literary errors, dyslexia.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on December 11, 2019, 17:30:50 pm
Something has to be wrong with democracy when the choice is between Boris Johnson & Jeremy Corbyn.

I despair at the thought that enough people are out there that are willing to give their vote to a party led by Johnson.  I begin to think that the country must be completely different to the one I left 15 years ago. Then I realise that the choice is him or Corbyn and that does make it more understandable/Palatable

So I want a hung parliament leading to a 2nd Brexit referendum. Tactical voting ftw!!

If Labour had a more moderate man in charge there is no way that Johnson would have a chance of remaining prime minister.  If he does become leader with a majority that enables him to do what he wants I really want "Get Brexit Done" to be as big a millstone to him as "Strong and Stable" was to May.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Chris Quartly on December 11, 2019, 19:23:04 pm
I agree with Dom on this one. The biggest damnation that can be thrown at Labour is that any competent party should be absolutely wiping the floor given the shower of shit they are up against.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Richard_2112 on December 12, 2019, 01:40:00 am
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-hides-fridge-general-election-piers-morgan-good-morning-britain-live-tv-a9241631.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-hides-fridge-general-election-piers-morgan-good-morning-britain-live-tv-a9241631.html)

What an utter coward! And people really think he'll be able to stand up to world leaders who will pick apart the scraps of the UK if we ever do leave the EU!?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on December 12, 2019, 13:17:53 pm
Quote from: Chris Quartly on December 11, 2019, 19:23:04 pmI agree with Dom on this one. The biggest damnation that can be thrown at Labour is that any competent party should be absolutely wiping the floor given the shower of shit they are up against.
And Corbyn is the biggest turd amongst all of them.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 12, 2019, 13:42:29 pm
Quote from: Matt2112 on December 11, 2019, 15:40:06 pmBojo infamously referred to niqab-wearing Muslim women as looking like "letterboxes" in the same article in which he endorsed their right to wear such religiously conservative clothing. That position strikes me as actually to the left of Muslim feminists like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who are far more scathing of her counterparts who dress more "modestly".

But, of course, something like that will go unsaid on the far left lest they get into one of their intersectional identity-politics tizzies.
People today only seem to be able to deal with "soundbites" and make no effort to take into account the details and context of what someone has said. It started back with Mrs Thatched and her taken out of context "No such thing as society". People hear these things and then just parrot them as if they understand. They know nothing.

In anoter post Richard2112 referenced the closure of 780 libraries. The Mail on Sunday - yes the MoS -  was lamenting that last week, with someone saying that libraries are where people can go to broaden their horizons. There you have the reason why libraries will shut, the vast majority of people today don't want to broaden their horizons. It's all about social media likes, the next tattoo and what shade they are going to be spray-tanned.

The whole world needs resetting.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 12, 2019, 21:37:07 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 12, 2019, 13:42:29 pmPeople today only seem to be able to deal with "soundbites" and make no effort to take into account the details and context of what someone has said. It started back with Mrs Thatched and her taken out of context "No such thing as society". People hear these things and then just parrot them as if they understand. They know nothing.

In anoter post Richard2112 referenced the closure of 780 libraries. The Mail on Sunday - yes the MoS -  was lamenting that last week, with someone saying that libraries are where people can go to broaden their horizons. There you have the reason why libraries will shut, the vast majority of people today don't want to broaden their horizons. It's all about social media likes, the next tattoo and what shade they are going to be spray-tanned.

The whole world needs resetting.
Hell is other people.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on December 12, 2019, 21:44:05 pm
Lots of rumours coming out of Uxbridge that his Uxbridge seat may be in danger. Fingers crossed !
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 12, 2019, 22:44:43 pm
Quote from: Bisto on December 12, 2019, 21:37:07 pmHell is other people.
Not 'Arf!

Especially when you have Aspergers, Misophonia and Misokinesia.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on December 13, 2019, 02:31:37 am
I can't wait for the c*** in Islington.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on December 13, 2019, 02:31:54 am
Sorry, meant to type "count" of course.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on December 31, 2019, 13:18:41 pm
Below is a list of the devastating measures already undertaken by dictator Johnson.

Borrowed!
.
In his first four days as Prime Monster of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson has:

Cut the disability benefits of 650,000 vulnerable people.

Rolled back on plans to address the climate change emergency.

Banned any boycott of Israel and supported their renewed offensive against the unarmed civilians of Gaza.

Removed child refugee legal protections.

Rolled back his pledge to increase nurses for the NHS.

Told us that the NHS is no longer protected from a trade deal with the US.

Told us that future deals will be conducted in secret.

Blocked anyone without photo ID from voting in future elections.

Drafted new constituency boundaries to keep the Tories in power indefinitely.

Dismissed renewed calls for a second Scottish independence referendum causing further disharmony.

Stated that workers rights and Trade Unions are under threat.

Rolled back pledge to increase the national living wage. 

Announced an increase in MP's wages to £82k a year

Scrapped EU directives on holiday pay, sick leave and working hours.

Stated that Brexit is happening by the the 31st of January with the worst no-deal scenario yet.

For anyone looking for sources (thanks Katie Round):

1 disability
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/650000-disability-benefit-claimants-money-3654699

2 Climate change https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-climate-change-flights-carbon-emissions-net-zero-queens-speech-a9253516.html

3 israel
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-israel-boycott-ban-bds-queens-speech-a9253651.html

4 child refugee
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-withdrawal-bill-brexit-child-refugees-dubs-amendment-a9253841.html

5 nurses
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2019-50834894/matt-hancock-and-dan-walker-clash-over-tory-50000-nurses-pledge

6 secret future deals
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-bill-trade-deal-us-withdrawal-agreement-latest-a9253811.html

7 voting and id
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-id-policy-boris-johnson-election-polling-stations-queens-speech-a9254641.html

8 new constituencies
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1219004/boris-johnson-news-boundary-changes-uk-constituencies-labour-party

9 scottish independence
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/johnson-refuses-call-for-scottish-independence-vote-/5212688.html

10 workers rights
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-queens-speech-brexit-news-workers-rights-withdrawal-agreement-a9253141.html

11 national living wage
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-living-wage-queens-speech-sajid-javid-manifesto-tory-a9253376.html

12 mps wages
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1218895/MPs-pay-rise-house-of-commons-tories-labour-brexit-election-expenses-scandal

13 eu holiday pay
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-judges-scrap-eu-21121617

14 no deal
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/brexit/brexit-deal-latest-boris-johnson-no-deal-exit-eu-talks-1342720

Thanks to Occupy News Network
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 31, 2019, 14:45:18 pm
And if you actually read the articles - admittedly I've only looked at a couple- there's a lot of "could" about these things.

e.g. on 13 judges will be allowed to overturn things. Being allowed to doesn''t mean they will do.

e.g. on 11 the living wage the pledge included "so long as economic conditions allow" nothing that the increases will NOT be implemented. Personally the living wage wants scrapping, it means that the differential between the economically inept and the merely low paid - such as my dear wife - is being eroded.

People: Do not believe ANYTHING you read. Don't take links at face value.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on December 31, 2019, 15:03:48 pm
Quote from: Bisto on December 31, 2019, 13:18:41 pmdictator Johnson.


(http://truth.justdied.com/images/laffs.gif)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on December 31, 2019, 17:30:40 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 31, 2019, 14:45:18 pmAnd if you actually read the articles - admittedly I've only looked at a couple- there's a lot of "could" about these things.

e.g. on 13 judges will be allowed to overturn things. Being allowed to doesn''t mean they will do.

e.g. on 11 the living wage the pledge included "so long as economic conditions allow" nothing that the increases will NOT be implemented. Personally the living wage wants scrapping, it means that the differential between the economically inept and the merely low paid - such as my dear wife - is being eroded.

People: Do not believe ANYTHING you read. Don't take links at face value.
Haven't looked into these as yet but one thing is for sure. Believe anything Johnson or any of his cronies say at your peril. 100% not to be trusted as the DUP have already found out.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 31, 2019, 19:01:13 pm
Quote from: döm on December 31, 2019, 17:30:40 pmHaven't looked into these as yet but one thing is for sure. Believe anything Johnson or any of his cronies say at your peril. 100% not to be trusted as the DUP have already found out.
Hey, Politicians 100% not to be trusted, people think Boris is Far Right. He isn't, he's probably slightly to the right of BLiar.
And at least he won' drag us into a Marxist state. For small mercies be grateful. As for the DUP - suck it you filthy prods!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on December 31, 2019, 20:03:00 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on December 31, 2019, 19:01:13 pmHey, Politicians 100% not to be trusted, people think Boris is Far Right. He isn't, he's probably slightly to the right of BLiar.
And at least he won' drag us into a Marxist state. For small mercies be grateful. As for the DUP - suck it you filthy prods!
Proof will be in the pudding in terms of how far right he is.

As to the DUP I'm happy to see their demise and how they've been screwed. It really shows though how Johnson is only loyal to one thing... himself.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on January 01, 2020, 02:29:54 am
Quote from: döm on December 31, 2019, 20:03:00 pmProof will be in the pudding in terms of how far right he is.

As to the DUP I'm happy to see their demise and how they've been screwed. It really shows though how Johnson is only loyal to one thing... himself.
Once again, he's a politician. Untustworthy bunch of gobshites the lot of them. But, at least he's not propelled by brain-dead student Marxism.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on January 01, 2020, 12:03:37 pm
Quote from: Bisto on December 31, 2019, 13:18:41 pmBelow is a list of the devastating measures already undertaken by dictator Johnson.

Borrowed!
.
In his first four days as Prime Monster of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson has:

Cut the disability benefits of 650,000 vulnerable people.

Rolled back on plans to address the climate change emergency.

Banned any boycott of Israel and supported their renewed offensive against the unarmed civilians of Gaza.

Removed child refugee legal protections.

Rolled back his pledge to increase nurses for the NHS.

Told us that the NHS is no longer protected from a trade deal with the US.

Told us that future deals will be conducted in secret.

Blocked anyone without photo ID from voting in future elections.

Drafted new constituency boundaries to keep the Tories in power indefinitely.

Dismissed renewed calls for a second Scottish independence referendum causing further disharmony.

Stated that workers rights and Trade Unions are under threat.

Rolled back pledge to increase the national living wage. 

Announced an increase in MP's wages to £82k a year

Scrapped EU directives on holiday pay, sick leave and working hours.

Stated that Brexit is happening by the the 31st of January with the worst no-deal scenario yet.

For anyone looking for sources (thanks Katie Round):

1 disability
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/650000-disability-benefit-claimants-money-3654699

2 Climate change https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-climate-change-flights-carbon-emissions-net-zero-queens-speech-a9253516.html

3 israel
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-israel-boycott-ban-bds-queens-speech-a9253651.html

4 child refugee
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/boris-johnson-withdrawal-bill-brexit-child-refugees-dubs-amendment-a9253841.html

5 nurses
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2019-50834894/matt-hancock-and-dan-walker-clash-over-tory-50000-nurses-pledge

6 secret future deals
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-bill-trade-deal-us-withdrawal-agreement-latest-a9253811.html

7 voting and id
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-id-policy-boris-johnson-election-polling-stations-queens-speech-a9254641.html

8 new constituencies
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1219004/boris-johnson-news-boundary-changes-uk-constituencies-labour-party

9 scottish independence
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/johnson-refuses-call-for-scottish-independence-vote-/5212688.html

10 workers rights
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-queens-speech-brexit-news-workers-rights-withdrawal-agreement-a9253141.html

11 national living wage
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-living-wage-queens-speech-sajid-javid-manifesto-tory-a9253376.html

12 mps wages
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1218895/MPs-pay-rise-house-of-commons-tories-labour-brexit-election-expenses-scandal

13 eu holiday pay
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-judges-scrap-eu-21121617

14 no deal
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/brexit/brexit-deal-latest-boris-johnson-no-deal-exit-eu-talks-1342720

Thanks to Occupy News Network
Well the only definite things that I've seen announced so far is that we're leaving the EU on January 31st, and the minimum wage is going up by 4x the rate of inflation. At the end of the day, even if it turns out that Johnson is the worlds biggest liar, there was never any real doubt about the result of the general election, as I don't think there was any other alternative. Time will tell, and we'll just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on January 04, 2020, 15:39:05 pm
Quote from: zoony on January 01, 2020, 12:03:37 pmWell the only definite things that I've seen announced so far is that we're leaving the EU on January 31st, and the minimum wage is going up by 4x the rate of inflation. At the end of the day, even if it turns out that Johnson is the worlds biggest liar, there was never any real doubt about the result of the general election, as I don't think there was any other alternative. Time will tell, and we'll just have to wait and see.
It is interesting and good that the conservatives have put up the LW because way back in 1998 when labour introduced it the Tories opposed it.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on January 04, 2020, 16:31:37 pm
It is interesting, and it does show that the People's Government is instinctively centrist.

The minimum wage was one of two big policy mistakes that incoming New Labour government made; the other being devolution - which it argued would, in Scotland's case, take the wind out of the sails of Scottish nationalism. What actually happened of course was that the Scottish Parliament became a sort of grievance engine for Little Scotlanders; a platform for them to indulge their loathing of the English.

In both cases the Conservative Party decided that the genie wouldn't go back in the bottle, and didn't offer to reverse either of these errors in subsequent manifestos.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on January 04, 2020, 22:37:39 pm
Quote from: Slim on January 04, 2020, 16:31:37 pmIt is interesting, and it does show that the People's Government is instinctively centrist.

The minimum wage was one of two big policy mistakes that incoming New Labour government made; the other being devolution - which it argued would, in Scotland's case, take the wind out of the sails of Scottish nationalism. What actually happened of course was that the Scottish Parliament became a sort of grievance engine for Little Scotlanders; a platform for them to indulge their loathing of the English.

In both cases the Conservative Party decided that the genie wouldn't go back in the bottle, and didn't offer to reverse either of these errors in subsequent manifestos.
Nope Alex Salmond happened, a populist just like Farridge and Johnston, All three are lying toads.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: captainkurtz on January 04, 2020, 23:46:03 pm
Is Johnson still on holiday?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on January 05, 2020, 10:10:08 am
Quote from: captainkurtz on January 04, 2020, 23:46:03 pmIs Johnson still on holiday?
You can't blame him really. Criticize Trump and risk a trade deal the UK is really desperate for or support him and be forced into supporting a senseless war. 

Tough one but that's the sort of thing that happens when you decide to leave the relative sanity of the EU.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on January 05, 2020, 10:24:23 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on January 04, 2020, 22:37:39 pmNope Alex Salmond happened, a populist just like Farridge and Johnston, All three are lying toads.
Alex Salmond had already happened before devolution.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on January 05, 2020, 10:26:10 am
Quote from: captainkurtz on January 04, 2020, 23:46:03 pmIs Johnson still on holiday?

Returning today, I hear this morning. Pleased that he's had one after what must have been a stressful and gruelling election campaign. It's in no-one's interests to have an exhausted PM.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on January 05, 2020, 12:17:53 pm
yes you are right rather have BJ fully recovered from all his lying than WW3.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nick on January 05, 2020, 12:26:12 pm
Quote from: Slim on January 05, 2020, 10:26:10 amReturning today, I hear this morning. Pleased that he's had one after what must have been a stressful and gruelling election campaign. It's in no-one's interests to have an exhausted PM.
Hardly Churchillian or Thatcherlike.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on January 05, 2020, 22:34:45 pm
Quote from: Slim on January 05, 2020, 10:24:23 amAlex Salmond had already happened before devolution.
Yes you are right. I remember though that after devolution Alex Salmond resigned in 2000 and Nationalism and the SNPs popularity took a nose dive. That is why they got Salmond back in 2004 and slowly had to rebuild.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on January 06, 2020, 18:29:55 pm
Can't help thinking this is a bit strong from Boris.


(http://truth.justdied.com/images/boris_reply.jpg)

I've censored the rude words.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on January 07, 2020, 13:46:24 pm
Quote from: Slim on January 06, 2020, 18:29:55 pmCan't help thinking this is a bit strong from Boris.


(http://truth.justdied.com/images/boris_reply.jpg)

I've censored the rude words.
Lol, nice one Boris.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on February 03, 2020, 22:18:35 pm
I see Johnson tried to ban certain journalists from attending a no 10 press briefing today.

All journalists walked out in protest. They obviously have more respect for democracy than the Prime Minister.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 03, 2020, 23:37:41 pm
Quote from: döm on February 03, 2020, 22:18:35 pmI see Johnson tried to ban certain journalists from attending a no 10 press briefing today.

All journalists walked out in protest. They obviously have more respect for democracy than the Prime Minister.
Who did he try and ban?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on February 04, 2020, 00:16:41 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on February 03, 2020, 23:37:41 pmWho did he try and ban?
This report mentions The Huff Post, Independent, Mirror among others...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/03/political-journalists-boycott-no-10-briefing-after-reporter-ban
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nick on February 04, 2020, 10:49:42 am
Soon a Ministry of Truth will be set up so the government can make direct proclamations to the population without those pesky journalists questioning things.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 04, 2020, 20:46:44 pm
First they got rid of the journalists. Then no one knows what happened.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 09, 2020, 11:30:16 am
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/4d0d54caa1642563ea2c01ab8a02344fd2b99bc4/14_64_4835_3013/master/4835.jpg?width=940&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=322e1a6978922639ea298344539446c3)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nick on February 10, 2020, 19:27:36 pm
So now we're looking at a Bridge between Scotland and N Ireland. Where do I start?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on February 10, 2020, 20:05:31 pm
Quote from: Nick on February 10, 2020, 19:27:36 pmSo now we're looking at a Bridge between Scotland and N Ireland. Where do I start?
A nice parting gift before they both leave the union?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on February 10, 2020, 20:05:42 pm
Quote from: Nick on February 10, 2020, 19:27:36 pmSo now we're looking at a Bridge between Scotland and N Ireland. Where do I start?
Scotland or N. Ireland, I guess
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nick on February 11, 2020, 18:45:42 pm
Boris was born abroad and has admitted taking class A substances, surely we should deport him.?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on February 11, 2020, 21:21:57 pm
Quote from: Nick on February 11, 2020, 18:45:42 pmBoris was born abroad and has admitted taking class A substances, surely we should deport him.?

Need to convict him first. :)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bez on February 11, 2020, 21:24:38 pm
Quote from: Nick on February 10, 2020, 19:27:36 pmSo now we're looking at a Bridge between Scotland and N Ireland. Where do I start?
Boris couldn't build a bridge from North to South London - even though he spent £53 million of taxpayer money trying.... What makes anyone think that a bridge across munition infested seas is a good idea?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 11, 2020, 21:36:06 pm
Quote from: DavidL on February 10, 2020, 20:05:42 pmScotland or N. Ireland, I guess
Why not do a three way bridge?

NI, Scotland and Wales all linked by the isle of man????

I might email boris with this he loves wasting money, maybe we can have flowers and allotments on it, of course it will be tariff free!

"Get the bridge done"
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on February 12, 2020, 11:19:57 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on February 11, 2020, 21:36:06 pmWhy not do a three way bridge?

NI, Scotland and Wales all linked by the isle of man????

I might email boris with this he loves wasting money, maybe we can have flowers and allotments on it, of course it will be tariff free!

"Get the bridge done"
And make them pay for it!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 13, 2020, 13:13:48 pm
I think Liar racist BJ should sack everyone in his cabinet and give all the jobs to the unelected bureaucrat Dominic Cummings. 

Let's just just stop running with the sham.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bez on February 13, 2020, 23:50:28 pm
Cabinet reshuffle seems to have been a mini "night of the long knives" with Javid feeling forced to resign (rather than have Cummings dictate fiscal policy to him) and anyone who had stood up to "cuddly Boris" (Like Julian Smith who by all accounts has been an excellent NI minister) being given the push....

"Yes, Prime Minister!" seems to be the order of the day to get on in this administration....the parallels with the US of A are all too obvious...
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Richard_2112 on February 14, 2020, 00:20:46 am
Let's be honest though; Javid was never going to stay chancellor for long, was he? He stepped aside in the tory leadership contest and I'd bet chancellor was the price he named. Now Boris has his large majority Javid isn't needed any more. Bit like in the final series of The Thick Of It when Ben Swaine haggles to be shadow chancellor in order to agree to sticking the knife to Nicola Murray then gets promptly fecked over by Malcolm Tucker.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on February 14, 2020, 10:09:53 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on February 13, 2020, 13:13:48 pmI think Liar racist BJ should sack everyone in his cabinet and give all the jobs to the unelected bureaucrat Dominic Cummings.

Let's just just stop running with the sham.
He can't be a racist he's Turkish!

Politics in this country was completely ruined by the axis of evil that was Tony BLiar and Alastair "More evil than Satan" Campbell. We reap what they sowed.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 14, 2020, 20:44:58 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on February 14, 2020, 10:09:53 amHe can't be a racist he's Turkish!

Politics in this country was completely ruined by the axis of evil that was Tony BLiar and Alastair "More evil than Satan" Campbell. We reap what they sowed.
yep you might be right, but that was a good 15 years ago. and now is now not 15 years ago. 

Thatcher had Bernard Bingham - Morgoth and Sauron.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on February 14, 2020, 22:53:53 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on February 14, 2020, 20:44:58 pmyep you might be right, but that was a good 15 years ago. and now is now not 15 years ago.

Thatcher had Bernard Bingham - Morgoth and Sauron.
Mrs Thatcher appeared to let her cabinet have more independence.

The fact that BLiar and Campbell were 15 years ago is a big grey creature with a trunk and big ears. they cast a mould to guide the future by.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on February 14, 2020, 23:00:31 pm
Blair and Campbell's actions are light years away from what Johnson and Cummings are getting up to and they've only just started !
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 14, 2020, 23:50:58 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on February 14, 2020, 22:53:53 pmMrs Thatcher appeared to let her cabinet have more independence.

The fact that BLiar and Campbell were 15 years ago is a big grey creature with a trunk and big ears. they cast a mould to guide the future by.
and you have to think why they did that.

But its 15 years ago and now is now.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on February 15, 2020, 00:09:09 am
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on February 14, 2020, 22:53:53 pmMrs Thatcher appeared to let her cabinet have more independence.

The fact that BLiar and Campbell were 15 years ago is a big grey creature with a trunk and big ears. they cast a mould to guide the future by.
Oh please!
The fact that Blair remains to this day an unconvicted war criminal, is held in high regard by the establishment and is allowed to continue to profit from his time in office is a total obscenity and one of the biggest indictments of British Political history ever which shames us all, but every Policy Advisor, Cabinet Minister, PM and Civil Servant is responsible for their own decisions, behaviour and actions.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on February 15, 2020, 00:19:08 am
Quote from: döm on February 14, 2020, 23:00:31 pmBlair and Campbell's actions are light years away from what Johnson and Cummings are getting up to and they've only just started !

If you're talking about domestic politics perhaps, but any good that Blair might have done for the people of this country in redressing the balance of Tory misrule should never be allowed to overshadow the fact that he is an evil c*** and took the United Kingdom into an illegal war which resulted in the deaths of over half a million civilians...their blood is on his hands...If there is a Hell I hope it haunts his dreams and every waking hour; it would almost be worth going their myself just to see justice done and witness the eternal torment he would be bound to suffer once he dies.

But there is no God, Hell or Heaven...how could their be when individuals like him not only get away with their crimes but continue to prosper from them?!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 17, 2020, 11:14:03 am
Quote from: Bisto on February 15, 2020, 00:19:08 amBut there is no God, Hell or Heaven...how could their be when individuals like him not only get away with their crimes but continue to prosper from them?!
Hell is for Blair I agree and he knows it deep down, look at his face closely and you can see it.

The point is that both Blair and Johnson are using their political mandate to do terrible things and why people are disenfranchised with politics and politicians. What is interesting though, Murdoch supported one and supports Johnson.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on February 17, 2020, 14:17:23 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on February 17, 2020, 11:14:03 amThe point is that both Blair and Johnson are using their political mandate to do terrible things and why people are disenfranchised with politics and politicians. What is interesting though, Murdoch supported one and supports Johnson.

Could you tell me what you consider to be the "terrible things" that Boris intends to visit upon us? I honestly can't imagine.

Personally I think Boris has made laughing stocks of his critics up to this point. So far removed from the bumbling, hair ruffling buffoon that some would have you imagine, he has followed up a decisive election win on the back of an extremely difficult brief with the cards he was dealt, and has shown an extremely firm grasp. His performances at PMQs have been commanding and assured.

His critics won't like it, but he's absolutely nailing it.

As for the reshuffle - I can well understand Sajid's dissapointment but there was a fault line between the visions of the two men with respect to the way our country is governed. Perhaps one of the cruel, terrible things that Rufus referred to is Boris' intention to spend a lot more on infrastructure and other public spending, and the Sajster's idea of fiscal discipline would have provided an ongoing source of friction that the party, the government and the country can well do without.

Interesting though that it was Sajid's advisers who were seen as the problem, rather than the Chancellor himself. I can't quite fathom that.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on February 17, 2020, 14:20:52 pm
Quote from: Richard_2112 on February 14, 2020, 00:20:46 amLet's be honest though; Javid was never going to stay chancellor for long, was he? He stepped aside in the tory leadership contest and I'd bet chancellor was the price he named. Now Boris has his large majority Javid isn't needed any more. Bit like in the final series of The Thick Of It when Ben Swaine haggles to be shadow chancellor in order to agree to sticking the knife to Nicola Murray then gets promptly fecked over by Malcolm Tucker.

This is indeed quite a lot like The Thick Of It, in that it's (a) quite entertaining, and (b) entirely made up. I'm especially fond of your notion that Sajid "stepped aside", when what actually happened was that he failed to get enough votes to go through to the next stage. Very creative.

Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: captainkurtz on February 18, 2020, 09:26:08 am
What's your take on Dominic Cummings, Slim?   Not meaning to be antagonistic - just curious.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: BasspedalMan on February 19, 2020, 11:16:41 am
I still think Boris has been promised £500,000,000 and a Caribbean Island in return for stuffing the country into an abyss so his disaster economics buddies can make hay!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on February 19, 2020, 14:13:15 pm
Quote from: BasspedalMan on February 19, 2020, 11:16:41 amI still think Boris has been promised £500,000,000 and a Caribbean Island in return for stuffing the country into an abyss so his disaster economics buddies can make hay!
May well be the case. Not working too well at the moment, though.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Chris Quartly on February 26, 2020, 19:37:35 pm
Quote from: captainkurtz on February 18, 2020, 09:26:08 amWhat's your take on Dominic Cummings, Slim?  Not meaning to be antagonistic - just curious.

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/10bSDvU0lpSous/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611b8413b19e11ea4a708532f754ce56c03e2a10a7b&rid=giphy.gif)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on February 26, 2020, 22:48:46 pm
Interesting tweets from @Dmitryopines

Essentially saying that Boris Johnson has got himself (politically speaking) into a  fantastic no lose situation with Brexit.


If he gets his way with his trade demands then all to the good. Champion negotiator, socked it to the EU and won - what a man!

If the EU plays hardball and refuses to accede to his demands then the story also writes itself. Unreasonable EU gave the UK no choice but to go for a no deal WTO arrangement. Yes the country will suffer as a result but we didn't surrender to Brussels and we survived WW2 didn't we? 

Whatever the outcome he's put himself in a fantastic position to win the next election. Which is all Johnson really cares about. As much as I dislike him you can't deny that he's a shrewd operator. The fact that he doesn't give a toss about what's best for the country is neither here nor there.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on February 27, 2020, 08:19:22 am
Quote from: döm on February 26, 2020, 22:48:46 pmWhatever the outcome he's put himself in a fantastic position to win the next election. Which is all Johnson really cares about. As much as I dislike him you can't deny that he's a shrewd operator. The fact that he doesn't give a toss about what's best for the country is neither here nor there.
And he's also carrying out the wishes of the majority that voted in the referendum, in a way that most of that group would support. Quite important that.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on February 27, 2020, 08:43:49 am
Quote from: DavidL on February 27, 2020, 08:19:22 amAnd he's also carrying out the wishes of the majority that voted in the referendum, in a way that most of that group would support. Quite important that.
Populism pure and simple. No thought of trying to achieve the best outcome for the country. Give the people what they want. When they don't like it blame someone else. Sorted !!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 11:47:33 am
Quote from: DavidL on February 27, 2020, 08:19:22 amAnd he's also carrying out the wishes of the majority that voted in the referendum, in a way that most of that group would support. Quite important that.
...and they voted to leave because they were promised certain results. Which are not being delivered and that can not be delivered.

Is that democracy?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 11:53:17 am
Quote from: döm on February 26, 2020, 22:48:46 pmInteresting tweets from @Dmitryopines

Essentially saying that Boris Johnson has got himself (politically speaking) into a  fantastic no lose situation with Brexit.


If he gets his way with his trade demands then all to the good. Champion negotiator, socked it to the EU and won - what a man!

If the EU plays hardball and refuses to accede to his demands then the story also writes itself. Unreasonable EU gave the UK no choice but to go for a no deal WTO arrangement. Yes the country will suffer as a result but we didn't surrender to Brussels and we survived WW2 didn't we?

Whatever the outcome he's put himself in a fantastic position to win the next election. Which is all Johnson really cares about. As much as I dislike him you can't deny that he's a shrewd operator. The fact that he doesn't give a toss about what's best for the country is neither here nor there.
Is this the same Boris Johnson that said in the spectator -2002, titled "Africa is a mess, but we can't blame colonialism" and another in which he described young Ugandan children who sang for him as "Aids-ridden choristers".

Is that the same man........ He became prime minister of the the UK? wow are we living in some sort of nut case right wing dystopian teenage novel. Is this for real! Next you will be saying a panel show host is president of the USA.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on February 27, 2020, 12:06:33 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 11:47:33 am...and they voted to leave because they were promised certain results. Which are not being delivered and that can not be delivered.

Is that democracy?
Well actually, yes it is. In the same way that our democracy has worked for decades. Anyway, whether those results can be delivered is indeed open to question but the fact that they cannot is far from determined. I know you guys like your crystal balls but I was wondering how you never predicted the coronavirus  ;D
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on February 27, 2020, 12:10:23 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 11:53:17 amIs this the same Boris Johnson that said in the spectator -2002, titled "Africa is a mess, but we can't blame colonialism" and another in which he described young Ugandan children who sang for him as "Aids-ridden choristers".

Is that the same man........ He became prime minister of the the UK? wow are we living in some sort of nut case right wing dystopian teenage novel. Is this for real! Next you will be saying a panel show host is president of the USA.
That'll be the nut case, right wing dystopian teenage novel (????) that appealed to so many voters at the GE. It's a bugger, isn't it, this democracy lark?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 12:12:48 pm
Quote from: DavidL on February 27, 2020, 12:06:33 pmWell actually, yes it is. In the same way that our democracy has worked for decades. Anyway, whether those results can be delivered is indeed open to question but whether they cannot is far from determined. I know you guys like your crystal balls but I was wondering how you never predicted the coronavirus  ;D
Connecting coronavirus and brexit as a get a get out is very poor. BTW brexit was about bring democracy home and telling the truth not more lying. Crikey David bottom of the barrel

but if you want some sort of proof.....well i guess I will give you some facts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/07/could-a-disease-wipe-out-humans-entirely/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/07/could-a-disease-wipe-out-humans-entirely/)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 12:14:18 pm
Quote from: DavidL on February 27, 2020, 12:10:23 pmThat'll be the nut case, right wing dystopian teenage novel (????) that appealed to so many voters at the GE. It's a bugger, isn't it, this democracy lark?
I can answer this in a flip message I will do it later.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on February 27, 2020, 12:14:57 pm
Quote from: döm on February 27, 2020, 08:43:49 amPopulism pure and simple. No thought of trying to achieve the best outcome for the country. Give the people what they want. When they don't like it blame someone else. Sorted !!
Oh it's popular alright (see General Election). Whose idea of the "best outcome for the country"?  "Give the people what they want"? Not a bad idea at all, that one.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on February 27, 2020, 13:44:07 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 11:47:33 am...and they voted to leave because they were promised certain results. Which are not being delivered and that can not be delivered.

Is that democracy?

Ha. Your opinion that they cannot be delivered has not yet been tested, and furthermore the results you will claim that were promised would most likely amount to an indelicately constructed straw man. Additionally, both sides made promises, or threats. Some of the claims made by the remain side have already been shown to be utter nonsense - therefore by your own logic, remaining in the EU would have been utterly anti-democratic.

I agree with you on that one.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister can boast an exceptional record of achievement in government over a remarkably short space of time.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1232971799987654661

And most importantly ..

(http://truth.justdied.com/images/cons_brexit_done.png)

Boris Johnson is giving every indication that he will be regarded by history as the finest national leader any European country has had since Margaret Thatcher.

And this thread has made absolute laughing stocks of some of you, I'm sorry to say.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on February 27, 2020, 13:44:29 pm
Quote from: captainkurtz on February 18, 2020, 09:26:08 amWhat's your take on Dominic Cummings, Slim?  Not meaning to be antagonistic - just curious.
Very much an admirer - canny operator, that one. The British people owe him a huge debt of gratitude and I trust he will be rewarded with a significant honour before too long.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: captainkurtz on February 27, 2020, 16:20:46 pm
Canny operator?  How so?  Can you elaborate?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 17:37:34 pm
Quote from: Slim on February 27, 2020, 13:44:07 pmHa. Your opinion that they cannot be delivered has not yet been tested, and furthermore the results you will claim that were promised would most likely amount to an indelicately constructed straw man. Additionally, both sides made promises, or threats. Some of the claims made by the remain side have already been shown to be utter nonsense - therefore by your own logic, remaining in the EU would have been utterly anti-democratic.

I agree with you on that one.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister can boast an exceptional record of achievement in government over a remarkably short space of time.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1232971799987654661

And most importantly ..

(http://truth.justdied.com/images/cons_brexit_done.png)

Boris Johnson is giving every indication that he will be regarded by history as the finest national leader any European country has had since Margaret Thatcher.

And this thread has made absolute laughing stocks of some of you, I'm sorry to say.
He is a liar racist and a coward.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on February 27, 2020, 18:21:17 pm
Liar? Well yes, he's a politician.
Racist? No. He's Turkish. I don't care if I get slaughtered for this, but the Wogs begin at Calais. Only whites can be racist.
Coward? Why not. Better to be a living coward than a dead hero.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on February 27, 2020, 22:02:40 pm
Got Brexit done Slim? I know Johnson is trying to ban the word but it's far from done.

That vainglorious graphic reminds me of George Bush's mission accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier  somewhere in the Arabian sea back in 2003. 

Iraq was far from done and just as back then the pain and suffering will continue long after the victory speech is completely forgotten.

And if he continues with the feck business no deal Brexit that he seems intent on he will be reviled far more than Bush and Blair ever were.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on February 27, 2020, 22:48:04 pm
Slims CONservatives

£0.7 trillion on the nation debt.
25% reduction in spending on public services.
over 2000 attempted suicides from the roll out of fit to work assessments.
120,000 deaths due to austerity.
4 million children living in poverty.
1.28 trillion of house hold debt which is going up
726 homeless deaths.
2018/19, the Trussell Trust--a UK-wide network of food banks--gave out almost 1.6 million three-day emergency food supplies to people in crisis.
Windrush
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

I can go on and on and on.

They are asking for another 5% cut in public spending to pay for HS2 and other Johnson vanity projects
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 13, 2020, 22:05:48 pm
Boris suddenly likes experts. really sadly ironic, what a twit

I thought we were all bored of experts.

Thanks to to the conservatives the national debt will be 2 Triilion. They will have put £1 trillion since 2010.

Cut cut cut, now spend spend spend, where's the plan....who lost the fag packet
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on March 14, 2020, 02:05:03 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 13, 2020, 22:05:48 pmBoris suddenly likes experts. really sadly ironic, what a twit

I thought we were all bored of experts.



That was Gove, not Boris in fairness.  Yes, it's a shame the likes of Professor David Nutt's expertise was considered..."inconvenient" looking back. I think the direction of travel will see him vindicated, however.  But that was then, and under a different Cabinet.

It's Corbyn's Labour that really has a current and ongoing problem with experts - witness the witch hunt against Trevor Phillips. Something Labour's Khalid Mahmood, England's first Muslim MP, lamented as "a sad and embarrassing episode for my party" while firmly defending Phillips' right to comment.  Would that "Baroness" Warsi and her vindictive ilk had similar sense.

I hope Starmer (1/20) is put in place and stops that sort of rot.  Plus I'll win some money (5/2). :)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on March 14, 2020, 15:31:27 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 13, 2020, 22:05:48 pmBoris suddenly likes experts. really sadly ironic, what a twit

I thought we were all bored of experts.

Thanks to to the conservatives the national debt will be 2 Triilion. They will have put £1 trillion since 2010.

Cut cut cut, now spend spend spend, where's the plan....who lost the fag packet

Not surprisingly, you haven't really thought about the wider picture. Firstly - austerity brought down the deficit quite dramatically, to the point where we can afford to be a bit less tight with the purse strings. There's no doubt though that the current government takes a different view and approach to the Cameron / Osborne government, but why shouldn't it? Boris is naturally centrist, One Nation Tory and Infrastructure projects and prudent public spending are inherent to that.

Secondly, borrowing is very cheap at the moment.

By the way, your notion that all of the national debt that has increased since 2010 has been "put up" by Conservative governments is nonsense. It would have taken an unimaginable programme of austerity to have levelled it out from the freefall inherited from Labour.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 15, 2020, 00:37:47 am
Quote from: Slim on March 14, 2020, 15:31:27 pmNot surprisingly, you haven't really thought about the wider picture. Firstly - austerity brought down the deficit quite dramatically, to the point where we can afford to be a bit less tight with the purse strings. There's no doubt though that the current government takes a different view and approach to the Cameron / Osborne government, but why shouldn't it? Boris is naturally centrist, One Nation Tory and Infrastructure projects and prudent public spending are inherent to that.

Secondly, borrowing is very cheap at the moment.

By the way, your notion that all of the national debt that has increased since 2010 has been "put up" by Conservative governments is nonsense. It would have taken an unimaginable programme of austerity to have levelled it out from the freefall inherited from Labour.
Yep the conservatives doubled the national debt in 10 years all the time they have been in power. Labour made Lehmans collapse, those crazy socialists.

Less tight purse strings?  they put 0.7 trillion on the national debt. 

And when labour said way back in 2012 borrowing is cheap at the moment the conservatives laughed in their face.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on March 18, 2020, 12:21:05 pm
I've explored this question of the national debt increase with you before, and I'm sure I'll do so a few more times.

Whatever you consider to be the cause of the financial crisis that led to the increase in the national debt continuing past 2010, the Conservative Party in government wasn't it. It's simply and obviously wrong to claim that the Conservative Government doubled the national debt.

I suppose I should copy & paste this into a text file for the next time you need to have this explained to you.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 14:27:17 pm
Under the conservatives government the national debt went up by £0.7 trillion. Fact

Then there is Brexit to go on. 200 billion so far
The latest round of spending in the budget, what was that 300 billion?
And the 330 billion because of CV19 So far, because the government did not close the borders and bring in adequate measures early on.

That will be around 1.5 Trillion pounds of extra nation debt under the Conservatives. In 10 years.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 18, 2020, 15:29:40 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 14:27:17 pmUnder the conservatives government the national debt went up by £0.7 trillion. Fact

Then there is Brexit to go on. 200 billion so far
The latest round of spending in the budget, what was that 300 billion?
And the 330 billion because of CV19 So far, because the government did not close the borders and bring in adequate measures early on.

That will be around 1.5 Trillion pounds of extra nation debt under the Conservatives. In 10 years.
Government debt went up because so much had been added under Labour. The costs of financing that debt added large amounts to the national debt FACT

You can't just slam debt financing into reverse, it take time to bring things back into line FACT

At what point should the Government have closed the borders? We're now not far behind what other European countries have done and their epidemics are further on than ours. POSSIBLE FACT

Would you have been happy if BoJo had slammed our doors shut when COVID19 was first announced at the end of December last year?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on March 18, 2020, 15:36:33 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 14:27:17 pmAnd the 330 billion because of CV19 So far, because the government did not close the borders and bring in adequate measures early on.

Hmmm, would I have more confidence in the British authorities or the Italian authorities to manage this crisis?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on March 18, 2020, 16:11:04 pm
Quote from: DavidL on March 18, 2020, 15:36:33 pmHmmm, would I have more confidence in the British authorities or the Italian authorities to manage this crisis?
On what basis?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 16:31:43 pm
The good time boy didnt want bad news on his watch. And did not take the advice. "get brexit it done"," take back control "and the new one "one what ever it takes". crikey is BJ a advertisment adjency.
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 18, 2020, 15:29:40 pmAt what point should the Government have closed the borders? We're now not far behind what other European countries have done and their epidemics are further on than ours. POSSIBLE FACT

Would you have been happy if BoJo had slammed our doors shut when COVID19 was first announced at the end of December last year?
To quote ----- from an expert, 


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/18/uk-failures-over-covid-19-will-increase-death-toll-says-leading-doctor (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/18/uk-failures-over-covid-19-will-increase-death-toll-says-leading-doctor)
A "collective failure" to appreciate the enormity of the coronavirus pandemic and enact swift measures to protect the public will lead to unnecessary deaths, according to a leading doctor (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/18/coronavirus-uk-expert-advice-wrong), who said the UK ignored clear warning signs from China.


Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet, rounded on politicians and their expert advisers for failing to act when Chinese researchers first warned about a devastating new virus that was killing people in Hubei eight weeks ago.

The team from Wuhan and Beijing reported in January (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext) that "the number of deaths was rising quickly" as the virus spread in China. They urged the global community to launch "careful surveillance" in view of the pathogen's "pandemic potential".
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/20141ae139806f124ead5f3792cccc18d2921d48/0_0_4000_2400/master/4000.jpg?width=460&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9ce88fe5f1e069cea6025887f5f61c2c)
Coronavirus: the week explained - sign up for our email newsletter

 
Read more

But writing in the Guardian, Horton said the warning was met with complacency in Britain, where for unknown reasons, medical and scientific advisers watched and waited. At the time, scientists advising ministers appeared to believe it could be treated like influenza, and that a "controlled epidemic" would generate "herd immunity" that would help protect the most vulnerable against the infection. The scenario called for upwards of 60% of the population to contract the virus.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 18:54:02 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 18, 2020, 15:29:40 pmGovernment debt went up because so much had been added under Labour. The costs of financing that debt added large amounts to the national debt FACT

You can't just slam debt financing into reverse, it take time to bring things back into line FACT
yes, i agree with you.

The deficit needs to be balanced and the national debt needs to be paid down. ND payments are around 3% of GDP- £43 billion annually.

Blaming labour for a world wide crash (Lehmans) is not the way forward, how many years ago. Capitalism and the trickle down economy is failing. ~Maybe getting rich companies need to pay some tax and tax the super wealthy is the way forward instead of the dogma of draconian social security cuts to the poor.

Labour were basically following conservatives monetarism (Thatcherism) under the Blair Brown government with a few knobs on. Because they did not want to wobble the markets. Their borrowing and ND was pretty average up to the world wide banking recession.

And I am no fan of labour either. I take pops at the conservatives because they are in power. And being a fanboi of any party seems very blinkered to me. Any politician who lies is a liar and the Conservatives in the last 10 years and Blair brown have shown themselves to be complete liars. The £350 million on the side of a bus is one of the most infamous examples of this. To say that and then now have the NHS is in crisis whilst this epidemic is happening makes me despise BJ and all he espouses. The very sad irony is that people most affected by CV19 are the people who believed the lie.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 18, 2020, 20:25:01 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 16:31:43 pmThe good time boy didnt want bad news on his watch. And did not take the advice. "get brexit it done"," take back control "and the new one "one what ever it takes". crikey is BJ a advertisment adjency.To quote ----- from an expert,


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/18/uk-failures-over-covid-19-will-increase-death-toll-says-leading-doctor (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/18/uk-failures-over-covid-19-will-increase-death-toll-says-leading-doctor)
A "collective failure" to appreciate the enormity of the coronavirus pandemic and enact swift measures to protect the public will lead to unnecessary deaths, according to a leading doctor (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/18/coronavirus-uk-expert-advice-wrong), who said the UK ignored clear warning signs from China.


Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet, rounded on politicians and their expert advisers for failing to act when Chinese researchers first warned about a devastating new virus that was killing people in Hubei eight weeks ago.

The team from Wuhan and Beijing reported in January (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext) that "the number of deaths was rising quickly" as the virus spread in China. They urged the global community to launch "careful surveillance" in view of the pathogen's "pandemic potential".
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/20141ae139806f124ead5f3792cccc18d2921d48/0_0_4000_2400/master/4000.jpg?width=460&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=9ce88fe5f1e069cea6025887f5f61c2c)
Coronavirus: the week explained - sign up for our email newsletter

 
Read more

But writing in the Guardian, Horton said the warning was met with complacency in Britain, where for unknown reasons, medical and scientific advisers watched and waited. At the time, scientists advising ministers appeared to believe it could be treated like influenza, and that a "controlled epidemic" would generate "herd immunity" that would help protect the most vulnerable against the infection. The scenario called for upwards of 60% of the population to contract the virus.
One Expert.

More experts.

Hindsight is 20-20.

And no matter what happens herd immunity will come in. It's called immunisation.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on March 18, 2020, 20:34:52 pm
Except  for those who have died and who will die before their time, needlessly, because of the Governments actions and lack thereof.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 21:05:14 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 18, 2020, 20:25:01 pmOne Expert.

More experts.

Hindsight is 20-20.

And no matter what happens herd immunity will come in. It's called immunisation.
Nick no, they have been told by everyone including WHO

And their modelling for herd immunity was up 250,000 deaths.

They should have asked everyone over 60 and people with underlying heath issues to self isolate.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on March 18, 2020, 22:45:36 pm
Quote from: Bisto on March 18, 2020, 20:34:52 pmExcept  for those who have died and who will die before their time, needlessly, because of the Governments actions and lack thereof.

I think you would struggle to establish the effect you describe from the cause you propose, there. Are you going to try?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on March 18, 2020, 22:46:02 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 18:54:02 pmyes, i agree with you.


Progress! Well done.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on March 18, 2020, 22:48:02 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 14:27:17 pmUnder the conservatives government the national debt went up by £0.7 trillion. Fact

That's much better, but what you originally claimed was that the Conservatives put it up by that amount. Which is a subtly different proposition, isn't it?
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 18, 2020, 22:52:00 pm
So, all these other countries where their Governments have been so much more proactive and better than ours, what are their death rates likes? How many people are dying before their time due to seasonal flu?

Once things are out there you have to accept some level of things taking their course. You have to. People are involved. People do stupid things. People do stupid things even more when told not to do them.

My 87 year old dad had COPD. He never has a flu vaccination - apart from the time he went to the Doctor's for something else and they sprung it on him.

It's interesting to compare with happened during the Swine Flu pandemic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 23:13:25 pm
Quote from: Slim on March 18, 2020, 22:48:02 pmThat's much better, but what you originally claimed was that the Conservatives put it up by that amount. Which is a subtly different proposition, isn't it?
no
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 23:20:13 pm
Quote from: Slim on March 18, 2020, 22:45:36 pmI think you would struggle to establish the effect you describe from the cause you propose, there. Are you going to try?
he does not need to. The government were happy to let over 200,000 people die they modelled it. They then changed their minds.

Looks bad in the Daily Mail/Express and the Telegraph. The demographic that would have died and their voters.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 19, 2020, 10:31:03 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 18, 2020, 23:20:13 pmhe does not need to. The government were happy to let over 200,000 people die they modelled it. They then changed their minds.

Looks bad in the Daily Mail/Express and the Telegraph. The demographic that would have died and their voters.
I think you'll find the early models didn't have over 200,000 deaths. That was after Italian data was used to alter the models.

It was on the BBC 10 o'clock news the other night. Oh, but then Auntie is an arm of Government isn't it.

And models are only models. Science isn't FACT. Science is a PROCESS.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 19, 2020, 12:30:35 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 19, 2020, 10:31:03 amI think you'll find the early models didn't have over 200,000 deaths. That was after Italian data was used to alter the models.

It was on the BBC 10 o'clock news the other night. Oh, but then Auntie is an arm of Government isn't it.

And models are only models. Science isn't FACT. Science is a PROCESS.
You can work it out though nick. 3.5% death rate. 15%  death rate in over 80s then all you need is contact rate. say 50%. Scary numbers
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on March 19, 2020, 14:03:32 pm
Quote from: döm on March 18, 2020, 16:11:04 pmOn what basis?
On the basis of political volatility and economic chaos.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on March 20, 2020, 19:34:23 pm
Never had Johnson down as a Communist. Looks can be deceptive!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on March 21, 2020, 11:58:34 am
Whatever else happens now, Boris is going to go down in history in Churchillian status. I think he is showing great leadership in leading us through this as best as he can, and no one can argue that he isn't stepping up to the plate with the financial help he is offering for businesses and workers. If you think about it, he's in a no lose situation, and in years to come when other PMs have the burden of the huge national debt that is now going to build up, it won't be his problem, and no one is going to blame him.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 21, 2020, 14:40:08 pm
err zoony, not sure.

Going to do herd immunity, u turn that will kill 250,000 people.
Not going to test, u turn yes we are
Not going to close schools, u turn yes we are
Not going to close restaurants, u turn yes we are
Not going to ban mass gatherings, u turn yes we are.

Churchill more like bumbling idiot. You should look how Taiwan have dealt with this.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bez on March 21, 2020, 14:42:16 pm
Also not sure....

Claims around having it under control in 12 weeks are hugely premature....

I have been imnpressed with the chancellor and the scientific folk at the briefings. Confident and assured.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 21, 2020, 14:53:31 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 21, 2020, 14:40:08 pmerr zoony, not sure.

Going to do herd immunity, u turn that will kill 250,000 people.
Not going to test, u turn yes we are
Not going to close schools, u turn yes we are
Not going to close restaurants, u turn yes we are
Not going to ban mass gatherings, u turn yes we are.

Churchill more like bumbling idiot. You should look how Taiwan have dealt with this.
Herd immunity COULD result in extra 250,000 people.
Testing was never going to be stopped, just types if testing.
Schools aren't being closed
Other things may well have depended on advice being given at the time.

Also, I'd like to think these decisions are being made collectively, not just by BoJo.

Taiwan benefits from not being part of the WHO

These things are all more subtly nuanced than simple black/white, yes/no situations. Today's twitterati/social media culture is bolloxing things up.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 22, 2020, 00:05:35 am
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 21, 2020, 14:53:31 pmHerd immunity COULD result in extra 250,000 people. 8.7 million x 60% x 8% = 417,000 it could have been very worse.
Testing was never going to be stopped, just types if testing. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11172831/who-slams-uk-coronavirus-testing/ (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11172831/who-slams-uk-coronavirus-testing/)
Schools aren't being closed. All schools closed on Friday for all pupils except for pupils with parents in key jobs specified by the government. The children will go to hubs https://www.liverpool.gov.uk/childcarehubs (https://www.liverpool.gov.uk/childcarehubs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkBIgsSXQn8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkBIgsSXQn8)
Other things may well have depended on advice being given at the time. And they did not learn from other countries?

Also, I'd like to think these decisions are being made collectively, not just by BoJo. He is prime minister and the buck stops with him but I guess he is only newspaper columnist in a right wing rag.

Taiwan benefits from not being part of the WHO They seem to have joined the WTO in 2011?

These things are all more subtly nuanced than simple black/white, yes/no situations. Today's twitterati/social media culture is bolloxing things up. Yes I agree but see my answers above.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 22, 2020, 00:58:31 am
A piece from the BBC on death figures from modelling https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654) 250,000 will not die from COVID-19

Schools ARE NOT CLOSED, if you use "except" it shows they are not closed. Mrs S works on a school reception, she's at work next week. She's a first aider and has to deal with all the vile coughing brats. Some schools in Yorkshire expect 70% of regular attendance. Schools are NOT CLOSED

And other countries are all showing best practice?

No, he's Prime Minister - supposdely first among equals

WHO not WTO you obviously cannot read https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/taiwan-shut-out-from-who-confronts-deadly-wuhan-coronavirus/ (https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/taiwan-shut-out-from-who-confronts-deadly-wuhan-coronavirus/)

And banning people from congregating together doesn't seem to work too well. Plenty of chavs were out in Skeggy today. Allegedly.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 22, 2020, 01:38:32 am
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 22, 2020, 00:58:31 amA piece from the BBC on death figures from modelling https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654)  That proves my point why they did a u turn. Thank god

Schools ARE NOT CLOSED, if you use "except" it shows they are not closed. Mrs S works on a school reception, she's at work next week. She's a first aider and has to deal with all the vile coughing brats. Some schools in Yorkshire expect 70% of regular attendance. Schools are NOT CLOSED. My step daughter is a English teacher and part of the leadership team. Schools are closed. With exceptions. Most kids are sent home, and the kids that go to school it will not be school as per normal.

And other countries are all showing best practice? All I know is that WHO have criticised the UK

No, he's Prime Minister - supposdely first among equals. The decisions stop with him not you or me.

WHO not WTO you obviously cannot read https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/taiwan-shut-out-from-who-confronts-deadly-wuhan-coronavirus/ (https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/taiwan-shut-out-from-who-confronts-deadly-wuhan-coronavirus/) Yes I defo can not read, but that does not explain Singapore who are part of WHO and have also dealt with CV19 much better than the UK

And banning people from congregating together doesn't seem to work too well. Plenty of chavs were out in Skeggy today. Allegedly. Apparently it was the same in Newcastle
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Matt2112 on March 22, 2020, 03:14:15 am
Schools are not closed - they are simply operating with fewer pupils, i.e. those whose parents/guardians are key workers.

Bumped into* into a fellow dog-walker today who is a primary school teacher; she told me herself and her colleagues will be in charge of 60 pupils as of next week.

Her school certainly isn't closed as far as her job goes.


* Not literally, obviously.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 22, 2020, 10:21:35 am
QuoteA piece from the BBC on death figures from modelling https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654)  That proves my point why they did a u turn. Thank god. It does not prove your point. It shows that the modelling predicting 250,000 deaths is wrong

Schools ARE NOT CLOSED, if you use "except" it shows they are not closed. Mrs S works on a school reception, she's at work next week. She's a first aider and has to deal with all the vile coughing brats. Some schools in Yorkshire expect 70% of regular attendance. Schools are NOT CLOSED. My step daughter is a English teacher and part of the leadership team. Schools are closed. With exceptions. Most kids are sent home, and the kids that go to school it will not be school as per normal. Schools are closed as educational establishments - who will notice the difference? - not as buildings. People wanted them shut to avoid people being placed in close proximity. NOT HAPPENING

And other countries are all showing best practice? All I know is that WHO have criticised the UK And others, I don't think they think anyone is testing enough, but once again, can anyone test enough?

No, he's Prime Minister - supposdely first among equals. The decisions stop with him not you or me. Yes and people can make wrong decisions. Shit happens. But he still does it in concert with others

WHO not WTO you obviously cannot read https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/taiwan-shut-out-from-who-confronts-deadly-wuhan-coronavirus/ (https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/taiwan-shut-out-from-who-confronts-deadly-wuhan-coronavirus/) Yes I defo can not read, but that does not explain Singapore who are part of WHO and have also dealt with CV19 much better than the UK. At the moment.

And banning people from congregating together doesn't seem to work too well. Plenty of chavs were out in Skeggy today. Allegedly. Apparently it was the same in Newcastle And that is why, no matter what is done wherever people are involved things will happen to muck things up.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 22, 2020, 10:48:48 am
Nick, I like the track changes way of discussing stuff it keeps the thread.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on March 22, 2020, 10:56:30 am
Johnson has had the opportunity to see this coming. It affected the UK after it hit Asia and the rest of Europe. Valuable time to learn from their experience and to prepare the UK for what's coming.

Preparation of hospitals, purchase of respirators and protective equipment for medical staff. Putting the correct isolation/separation measures  in place promptly to slow the spread.  Instead that time has been wasted.

And was it ignorance or design? It's not that long ago that he was talking about "taking it on the chin" in one go - to let it pass through with little intervention.

And this morning The Sunday Times has a report that his main man, the ghastly Dominic Cummings, said at the end of February that the Government's approach would be to "use herd immunity, protect the economy and if some pensioners died, so be it".

Events have taken over but  it shows the kind of negligent leadership that is on display and is making this outbreak much worse than it needed to be.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 26, 2020, 01:56:01 am
Quote from: Slim on March 18, 2020, 22:45:36 pmI think you would struggle to establish the effect you describe from the cause you propose, there. Are you going to try?
If we closed the UKs border is Mid January. Which is what Johnson should have done we can work it out. Because CV19 would not have entered the country. So it is a simple equation. 463 so far because Boris Johnson did not act.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on March 26, 2020, 09:11:59 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 26, 2020, 01:56:01 amIf we closed the UKs border is Mid January. Which is what Johnson should have done we can work it out. Because CV19 would not have entered the country. So it is a simple equation. 463 so far because Boris Johnson did not act.
Hindsight is 20/20. Those that are criticising him for not acting sooner would now be criticicising him for crashing the economy had he done what they suggest.
I can guarantee that
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 26, 2020, 10:19:40 am
Quote from: DavidL on March 26, 2020, 09:11:59 amHindsight is 20/20. Those that are criticising him for not acting sooner would now be criticicising him for crashing the economy had he done what they suggest.
I can guarantee that
Countries did close their borders and had far fewer cases. And then we would have seen whats happened in Italy USA. It is a known quantity.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 26, 2020, 10:39:53 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on March 26, 2020, 01:56:01 amIf we closed the UKs border is Mid January. Which is what Johnson should have done we can work it out. Because CV19 would not have entered the country. So it is a simple equation. 463 so far because Boris Johnson did not act.
He'd have had to have been extremely prescient to close UK borders mid January. The WHO wasn't even putting forward the case for border closures at that time, the following quote may only be from the font of falseness that is Wikipedia, but it does have link to citations.

QuoteOn 10 January, based on reports from Chinese authorities, the WHO issued a travel advisory asking travellers to "be prudent to reduce the general risk of acute respiratory infections while travelling in or from affected areas (currently Wuhan City)".[377] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019-20_coronavirus_pandemic#cite_note-WHO20200110_TA-400) While noting that the mode of transmission of the virus was unclear, it advised "against the application of any travel or trade restrictions on China". On 12 January, based on additional information from the Chinese National Health Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Commission), WHO stated that "at this stage, there is no infection among healthcare workers, and no clear evidence of human to human transmission."[378] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019-20_coronavirus_pandemic#cite_note-WHO20200112-401) On 24 January, WHO updated its travel advisory by recommending entry and exit screenings while continuing to advise "against the application of any restrictions of international traffic".[379] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019-20_coronavirus_pandemic#cite_note-WHO20200124_TA-402)

I'm not a gambling man, but I'd say that COVID19 was already in the country by mid January anyway.


Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 26, 2020, 21:32:07 pm
This is a list UK Railway comapanies and who owned them until the Conservatives nationalised them. And it was not because of Brexit. I wonder if the UK owns any European railway companies.


c2c: Italian state
Chiltern: German state
Caledonian sleeper: PRIVATE
CrossCountry: German state
East Midlands: Dutch state
Eurostar: French state
Gatwick Express: French state
Grand Central: German state
Great Northern: French state
GWR: PRIVATE
Greater Anglia: Dutch state
Heathrow Express: PRIVATE
Hull Trains: PRIVATE
LNER: British state
London Northwestern Railway: Dutch state
London Overground: German state
London Underground: British state
Merseyrail: Dutch state
Northern: German state
Northern Ireland Railways: British state
Scotrail: Dutch state
South Western Railway: Hong Kong state
Southeastern: French state
Southern: French state
Stansted Express: Dutch state
TfL rail: Hong Kong state
Thameslink: French state
TransPennine Express: PRIVATE
Transport for Wales: French state
West Coast: Italian state
West Midlands Railway: Dutch state
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Thailand Express on March 28, 2020, 12:56:35 pm
Quote from: Slim on February 27, 2020, 13:44:29 pmVery much an admirer - canny operator, that one. The British people owe him a huge debt of gratitude and I trust he will be rewarded with a significant honour before too long.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on March 28, 2020, 21:51:50 pm
The NY Times is not a fan (well this NY Times journalist anyway)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson.html#click=https://t.co/XlqdOeHzb1
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 28, 2020, 22:22:06 pm
Like we need a Seppo to criticise our PM...
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on March 28, 2020, 23:05:20 pm
Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on March 28, 2020, 22:22:06 pmLike we need a Seppo to criticise our PM...
The more the merrier!
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on March 28, 2020, 23:56:44 pm
Quote from: döm on March 28, 2020, 21:51:50 pmThe NY Times is not a fan (well this NY Times journalist anyway)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/opinion/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson.html#click=https://t.co/XlqdOeHzb1
Ah, what a shame. What a great shame.

I genuinely can't help thinking that Boris Johnson is going to be remembered as one of the very great Prime Ministers of modern times - Churchill, Thatcher, Johnson. His handling and triumph over Brexit was undoubtedly historic in very difficult circumstances, and so far in the greatest crisis our country has faced for decades his premiership has been inspirational.

He's a real character, a real leader, and perhaps most importantly in the current circumstances - a proven winner. And that's why people love him. That last one is probably the biggest reason that some people hate him, to be fair.

Beacuse one measure of the calibre success of a Conservative leader has always been the degree to which the left hate him or her. See also : Margaret Thatcher. Boris has only won one election so far; I'll be interested to see if he can win the next two as well.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on March 29, 2020, 16:27:18 pm
I guess you will be sending flowers and paying for his Harley street DR, Nurse their PPE, ventilator and oxygen.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Bisto on March 29, 2020, 17:39:02 pm
Quote from: Slim on March 28, 2020, 23:56:44 pmBeacuse one measure of the calibre success of a Conservative leader has always been the degree to which the left hate him or her. See also : Margaret Thatcher. Boris has only won one election so far; I'll be interested to see if he can win the next two as well.

True colours showing again, didn't take long for you to revert to type. It's typical that you should think and frame it that way and the fact that you care more about (the side you personally identify with) winning than the character of the people actually competing, how they play the game, or what that victory will mean for sections of society that you obviously look down on, and lack any kind of real empathy or sympathy for, says it all far more effectively, and damningly, than anything I could point to. At least you're consistent.

The irony, and tragedy, is, that the Tories won by default; the fact that they could put forward such an appalling candidate, in an unprecedented era of appalling candidates, to lead them to electoral success proves it. Labour and the LidDems are basket cases. Even (not so) Little Lord Fauntleroy (Jacob Rees Mogg) could have done the same, and with far less artifice and duplicity.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Slim on April 05, 2020, 00:36:34 am
Quote from: Bisto on March 29, 2020, 17:39:02 pmTrue colours showing again, didn't take long for you to revert to type. It's typical that you should think and frame it that way and the fact that you care more about (the side you personally identify with) winning than the character of the people actually competing, how they play the game, or what that victory will mean for sections of society that you obviously look down on, and lack any kind of real empathy or sympathy for, says it all far more effectively, and damningly, than anything I could point to. At least you're consistent.

The irony, and tragedy, is, that the Tories won by default; the fact that they could put forward such an appalling candidate, in an unprecedented era of appalling candidates, to lead them to electoral success proves it. Labour and the LidDems are basket cases. Even (not so) Little Lord Fauntleroy (Jacob Rees Mogg) could have done the same, and with far less artifice and duplicity.


Sorry, old chap - none of what you've typed here is particularly coherent and your second paragraph is even more nonsensical than the first. I'm passionate about the success of the Conservative Party at least in part because of the spirit and character of those who make up its ranks, but more especially because I care about all of society, especially the vulnerable and poor. That's empathy and sympathy.

You may well imagine that the stereotype of the typical Tory you believe in isn't consistent with that, but that's only really a problem in your head, not the real world.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on April 07, 2020, 11:56:28 am
I hope he recovers quickly. It's funny though. In a previous life the thought of having Raab in charge would have frightened the life out of me but having the likes of Johnson and Trump in charge of their respective countries has normalised having idiots in charge.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 08, 2020, 00:18:27 am
does he know where Dover is yet? god bless his sole.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on April 08, 2020, 01:03:14 am
Quote from: rufus the dawg on April 08, 2020, 00:18:27 amdoes he know where Dover is yet? god bless his sole.
Very funny, rufus! I just don't know whether you intended it to be 😉
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 08, 2020, 10:26:56 am
Quote from: DavidL on April 08, 2020, 01:03:14 amVery funny, rufus! I just don't know whether you intended it to be 😉
David.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: The Letter R on April 08, 2020, 15:02:09 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on April 08, 2020, 00:18:27 amdoes he know where Dover is yet? god bless his sole.
Bet he can't wait to put his feet up ;-)
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: döm on April 08, 2020, 15:45:01 pm
He'll soon find somewhere to plaice them
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: DavidL on April 08, 2020, 16:39:54 pm
One foot wrong and he will fall from his perch
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 18, 2020, 17:03:27 pm
Many people say Boris Johnson is the new Winston Churchill and has the same way with words. Ie a word smith. The best written books I have read are by Oscar Wilde. But lets compare Churchill to Johnston

Here is a essay from 1925 when he was in his early mid 50s same age has Boris Johnson

Mass Effects in Modern Life (https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1915-1929-nadir-and-recovery/mass-effects-in-modern-life/)
An essay by Winston S Churchill, 1925
Is the march of events ordered and guided by eminent men, or do our leaders merely fall into their places at the heads of the moving columns? Is human progress the result of the resolves and deeds of individuals, or are these resolves and deeds only the outcome of time and circumstance? Is History the chronicle of famous men and women, or only of their responses to the tides, tendencies and opportunities of their age? Do we owe the ideals and wisdom that make our world to the glorious few, or to the patient anonymous innumerable many? The question has only to be posed to be answered. We have but to let the mind's eye skim back over the story of nations, indeed to review the experience of our own small lives, to observe the decisive part which accident and chance play at every moment. If this or that had been otherwise, if this instruction had not been given, if that blow had not been struck, if that horse had not stumbled, if we had not met that woman, or missed or caught that train, the whole course of our lives would have been changed; and with our lives the lives of others, until gradually, in ever-widening circles, the movement of the world itself would have been affected. And if this be true of the daily experience of ordinary average people, how much more potent must be the deflection which the Master Teachers, Thinkers, Discoverers, Commanders have imparted at every stage. True, they require their background, their atmosphere, their opportunity; but these were also the leverages which magnified their power. I have no hesitation in ranging myself with those who view the past history of the world mainly as the tale of exceptional human beings, whose thoughts, actions, qualities, virtues, triumphs, weaknesses and crimes have dominated the fortunes of the race. But we may now ask ourselves whether powerful changes are not coming to pass, are not already in progress or indeed far advanced. Is not mankind already escaping from the control of individuals? Are not our affairs increasingly being settled by mass processes? Are not modern conditions at any rate throughout the English-speaking communities hostile to the development of outstanding personalities and to their influence upon events: and lastly if this be true, will it be for our greater good and glory? These questions merit some examination from thoughtful people.
Certainly we see around us today a marked lack of individual leadership. The late Mr. John Morley, statesman and philanthropist, man of letters and man of affairs, some years ago toward the close of his life delivered an oration in which he drew attention to the decline in the personal eminence of the leaders in almost all the important spheres of thought and art. He contrasted the heads of the great professions in the early twentieth century with those who had shone in the mid-Victorian era. He spoke of the vacant Thrones in Philosophy, History, Economics, Oratory, Statecraft, Poetry, Literature, Painting, Sculpture, and Music, which stood on every side. He pointed, as far as possible without offence, to the array of blameless mediocrities who strutted conscientiously around the seats of the mighty decked in their discarded mantles and insignia. The pith and justice of these reflections were unwelcome, but not to be denied. They are no less applicable to the United States. With every natural wish to be complimentary to our own age and generation, with every warning against singing the praises of former times, it is difficult to marshal today in any part of the English-speaking world an assembly of notables who either in distinction or achievement can compare with those to whom our grandfathers so gladly paid attention and tribute.
It must be admitted that in one great sphere the thrones are neither vacant nor occupied by pygmies. Science in all its forms surpasses itself every year. The body of knowledge ever accumulating is immediately interchanged and the quality and fidelity of the research never flags. But here again the mass effect largely suppresses the individual achievement. The throne is occupied; but by a throng.
In part we are conscious of the enormous processes of collectivization which are at work among us. We have long seen the old family business, where the master was in direct personal touch with his workmen, swept out of existence or absorbed by powerful companies, which in their turn are swallowed by mammoth trusts. We have found in these processes, whatever hardships they may have caused to individuals, immense economic and social advantages. The magic of mass production has carried all before it. The public have a cheaper and even better article or a superior service; the workmen have better wages and greater security.
The results upon national character and psychology are more questionable. We are witnessing a great diminution in the number of independent people who had some standing of their own, albeit a small one, and who if they conducted their affairs with reasonable prudence could live by no man's leave underneath the law. They may be better off as the salaried officials of great corporations; but they have lost in forethought, in initiative, in contrivance, in freedom and in effective civic status.
These instances are but typical of what is taking place in almost every sphere of modern industrial life, and of what must take place with remorseless persistency, if we are to enjoy the material blessings which scientific and organized civilization is ready to bestow in measureless abundance.
In part, again, these changes are unconscious. Public opinion is formed and expressed by machinery. The newspapers do an immense amount of thinking for the average man and woman. In fact they supply them with such a continuous stream of standardized opinion, borne along upon an equally inexhaustible flood of news and sensation, collected from every part of the world every hour of the day, that there is neither the need nor the leisure for personal reflection. All this is but a part of a tremendous educating process. But it is an education which passes in at one ear and out at the other. It is an education at once universal and superficial. It produces enormous numbers of standardized citizens, all equipped with regulation opinions, prejudices and sentiments, according to their class or party. It may eventually lead to a reasonable, urbane and highly serviceable society. It may draw in its wake a mass culture enjoyed by countless millions to whom such pleasures were formerly unknown. We must not forget the enormous circulations at cheap prices of the greatest books of the world, which is a feature of modern life in civilized countries, and nowhere more than in the United States. But this great diffusion of knowledge, information and light reading of all kinds may, while it opens new pleasures to humanity and appreciably raises the general level of intelligence, be destructive of those conditions of personal stress and mental effort to which the masterpieces of the human mind are due.
It is a curious fact that the Russian Bolsheviks, in carrying by compulsion mass conceptions to their utmost extreme, seem to have lost not only the guidance of great personalities, but even the economic fertility of the process itself. The Communist theme aims at universal standardization. The individual becomes a function: the community is alone of interest: mass thoughts dictated and propagated by the rulers are the only thoughts deemed respectable. No one is to think of himself as an immortal spirit, clothed in the flesh, but sovereign, unique, indestructible. No one is to think of himself even as that harmonious integrity of mind, soul and body, which, take it as you will, may claim to be the Lord of Creation. Subhuman goals and ideals are set before these Asiastic millions. The Beehive? No, for there must be no queen and no honey, or at least no honey for others. In Soviet Russia we have a society which seeks to model itself upon the Ant. There is not one single social or economic principle or concept in the philosophy of the Russian Bolshevik which has not been realized, carried into action, and enshrined in immutable laws a million years ago by the White Ant.
But human nature is more intractable than ant-nature. The explosive variations of its phenomena disturb the smooth working out of the laws and forces which have subjugated the White Ant. It is at once the safeguard and the glory of mankind that they are easy to lead and hard to drive. So the Bolsheviks, having attempted by tyranny and by terror to establish the most complete form of mass life and collectivism of which history bears record, have not only lost the distinction of individuals, but have not even made the nationalization of life and industry pay. We have not much to learn from them, except what to avoid.
Mass effects and their reactions are of course more pronounced in the leading nations than in more backward and primitive communities. In Great Britain, the United States, Germany, and France, the decline in personal pre-eminence is much more plainly visible than in societies which have less wealth, less power, less freedom. The great emancipated nations seem to have become largely independent of famous guides and guardians. They no longer rely upon the Hero, the Commander, or the Teacher as they did in bygone rugged ages, or as the less advanced peoples do today. They wend their way ponderously, unthinkingly, blindly, but nevertheless surely and irresistibly towards goals which are ill-defined and yet magnetic. Is it then true that civilization and democracy, when sufficiently developed, will increasingly dispense with personal direction; that they mean to find their own way for themselves; and that they are capable of finding the right way? Or are they already going wrong? Are they off the track? Have they quitted the stern, narrow high-roads which alone lead to glorious destinies and survival? Is what we now see in the leading democracies merely a diffusion and squandering of the accumulated wisdom and treasure of the past? Are we blundering on together in myriad companies, like innumerable swarms of locusts, chirping and devouring towards the salt sea, or towards some vast incinerator of shams and fallacies? Or have we for the first time reached those uplands whence all of us, even the humblest and silliest equally with the best, can discern for ourselves the beacon lights? Surely such an inquiry deserves an idle hour.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 18, 2020, 17:04:26 pm
...
In no field of man's activities is the tendency to mass effects and the suppression of the individual more evident than in modern war. The Armageddon through which we have recently passed displays the almost complete elimination of personal guidance. It was the largest and the latest of all wars. It was also the worst, the most destructive, and in many ways the most ruthless. Now that it is over we look back, and with minute and searching care seek to find its criminals and its heroes. Where are they? Where are the villains who made the War? Where are the deliverers who ended it? Facts without number, growing libraries, clouds of contemporary witnesses, methods of assembling and analyzing evidence never before possessed or used among men are at our disposal. The quest is keen. We ought to know; we mean to know. Smarting under our wounds, enraged by our injuries, amazed by our wonderful exertions and achievements, conscious of our authority, we demand to know the truth, and to fix the responsibilities. Our halters and our laurels are ready and abundant.
But what is the answer? There is no answer. On the one hand, the accusations eagerly pressed, now against this man or Government or nation, now against that, seem to dissipate themselves as the indictment proceeds. On the other, as the eager claimants for the honour of being the man, the Government, the nation THAT ACTUALLY WON THE WAR multiply and as their self-advocacy becomes more voluble, more strident, we feel less and less convinced. The Muse of History to whom we all so confidently appeal has become a Sphinx. A sad, half-mocking smile flickers on her stone war-scarred lineaments. While we gaze, we feel that the day will never come when we shall learn the answer for which we have clamoured. Meanwhile the halters rot and the laurels fade. Both the making and the winning of the most terrible and the most recent of earthly struggles seems to have been a co-operative affair!
Modern conditions do not lend themselves to the production of the heroic or super-dominant type. On the whole they are fatal to pose. The robes, the wigs, the ceremonies, the grades that fortified the public men and ruling functionaries of former centuries have fallen into disuse in every country. Even the Divinity that doth hedge a King is considered out of place except on purely official occasions. Sovereigns are admired for their free and easy manners, their readiness to mingle with all classes, their matter-of-fact work-a-day air, their dislike of pomp and ritual. The Minister or President at the head of some immense sphere of business, whose practical decisions from hour to hour settle so many important things, is no longer a figure of mystery and awe. On the contrary he is looked upon and, what is more important for our present purpose, looks upon himself as quite an ordinary fellow, who happens to be charged for the time being with a peculiar kind of large-scale work. He hustles along with the crowd in the public conveyances, or attired in plus fours waits his turn upon the links. All this is very jolly, and a refreshing contrast to the ridiculous airs and graces of the periwigged potentates of other generations. The question is whether the sense of leadership, and the commanding attitude towards men and affairs, are likely to arise from such simple and unpretentious customs and habits of mind; and further, whether our public affairs will now for the future run on quite happily without leaders who by their training and situation, no less than by their abilities, feel themselves to be uplifted above the general mass.
The intense light of war illuminates as usual this topic more clearly than the comfortable humdrum glow of peace. We see the modern commander entirely divorced from the heroic aspect by the physical conditions which have overwhelmed his art. No longer will Hannibal and Caesar, Turenne and Marlborough, Frederick and Napoleon, sit their horses on the battlefield and by their words and gestures direct and dominate between dawn and dusk the course of a supreme event. No longer will their fame and presence cheer their struggling soldiers. No longer will they share their perils, rekindle their spirits and restore the day. They will not be there. They have been banished from the fighting scene, together with their plumes, standards and breastplates. The lion-hearted warrior, whose keen eye detected the weakness in the foeman's line, whose resolve outlasted all the strains of battle, whose mere arrival at some critical point turned the tide of conflict, has disappeared. Instead our Generals are to be found on the day of battle at their desks in their offices fifty or sixty miles from the front, anxiously listening to the trickle of the telephone for all the world as if they were speculators with large holdings when the market is disturbed.
All very right and worthy. They are at their posts. Where else, indeed, should they be? The tape-machine ticks are recording in blood-red ink that railways are down or utilities up, that a bank has broken here, and a great fortune has been captured there. Calm sits the General; he is a high-souled speculator. He is experienced in finance. He has survived many market crashes. His reserves are ample and mobile. He watches for the proper moment, or proper day for battles now last for months and then launches them to the attack. He is a fine tactician, and knows the wiles of bull and bear, of attack and defence, to a nicety. His commands are uttered with decision. Sell fifty thousand of this. Buy at the market a hundred thousand of that. Ah! No, we are on the wrong track. It is not shares he is dealing in. It is the lives of scores of thousands of men. To look at him at work in his office you would never have believed that he was fighting a battle in command of armies ten times as large and a hundred times as powerful as any that Napoleon led. We must praise him if he does his work well, if he sends the right messages, and spends the right troops, and buys the best positions. But it is hard to feel that he is the hero. No; he is not the hero. He is the manager of a stock-market, or a stock-yard.
The obliteration of the personal factor in war, the stripping from high commanders of all the drama of the battlefield, the reducing of their highest function to pure office work, will have profound effects upon sentiment and opinion. Hitherto the great captain has been rightly revered as the genius who by the firmness of his character, and by the mysterious harmonies and inspirations of his nature, could rule the storm. He did it himself; and no one else could do it so well. He conquered there and then. Often he fell beneath the bolts and the balls, saviour of his native land. Now, however illogical it may seem and even unjust, his glamour and honours will not readily descend upon our calculating friend at the telephone. This worthy must assuredly be rewarded as a useful citizen, and a faithful perspicacious public servant; but not as a hero. The heroes of modern war lie out in the cratered fields, mangled, stifled, scarred; and there are too many of them for exceptional honours. It is mass suffering, mass sacrifice, mass victory. The glory which plays upon the immense scenes of carnage is diffused. No more the blaze of triumph irradiates the helmets of the chiefs. There is only the pale light of a rainy dawn by which forty miles of batteries recommence their fire, and another score of divisions flounder to their death in mud and poison gas.
That was the last war. The wars of the future will be even less romantic and picturesque. They will apparently be the wars not of armies but of whole populations. Men, women and children, old and feeble, soldiers and civilians, sick and wounded � all will be exposed, so we are told, to aerial bombardment, that is to say, to mass destruction by lethal vapour. There will not be much glory for the General in this process. My gardener last spring exterminated seven wasps' nests. He did his work most efficiently. He chose the right poison. He measured the exact amount. He put it stealthily in the right place, at the right time. The entire communities were destroyed. Not even one wasp got near enough to sting him. It was his duty and he performed it well. But I am not going to regard him as a hero.
So when some spectacled brass hat of a future world-agony has extinguished some London or Paris, some Tokyo or San Francisco, by pressing a button, or putting his initials neatly at the bottom of a piece of foolscap, he will have to wait a long time for fame and glory. Even the flashlights of the photographers in the national Ministry of Propaganda will be only a partial compensation. Still our Commander-in-Chief may be a man of exemplary character, most painstaking and thorough in his profession. He may only be doing what in all the circumstances some one or other would have to do. It seems rather hard that he should receive none of the glory which in former ages would have been the attribute of his office and the consequence of his success. But this is one of the mass effects of modern life and science. He will have to put up with it.
From this will follow blessed reactions. The idea of war will become loathsome to humanity. The military leader will cease to be a figure of romance and fame. Youth will no longer be attracted to such careers. Poets will not sing nor sculptors chisel the deeds of conquerors. It may well be that the chemist will carry off what credit can be found. The budding Napoleons will go into business, and the civilization of the world will stand on a surer basis. We need not waste our tears on the mass effects in war. Let us return to those of peace.
Can modern communities do without great men? Can they dispense with hero-worship? Can they provide a larger wisdom, a nobler sentiment, a more vigorous action, by collective processes, than were ever got from the Titans? Can nations remain healthy, can all nations draw together, in a world whose brightest stars are film stars and whose gods are sitting in the gallery? Can the spirit of man emit the vital spark by machinery? Will the new problems of successive generations be solved successfully by the common sense of most, by party caucuses, by Assemblies whose babble is no longer heeded? Or will there be some big hitch in the forward march of mankind, some intolerable block in the traffic, some vain wandering into the wilderness; and will not then the need for a personal chief become the mass desire?
We see a restlessness around us already. The cry of Measures, not Men no longer commands universal sympathy. There is a sense of vacancy and of fatuity, of incompleteness. We miss our giants. We are sorry that their age is past. The general levels of intelligence and of knowledge have risen. We are upon a high plateau. A peak of 10,000 feet above the old sea-level is scarcely noticeable. There are so many such eminences that we hardly bother about them. The region seems healthy, but the scenery is unimpressive. We mourn the towering grandeur which surrounded and cheered our long painful ascent. Ah! If we could only find some new enormous berg rising towards the heavens as high above our plateau as those old mountains down below rose above the plains and marshes! We want a monarch peak, with base enormous, whose summit is for ever hidden from our eyes by clouds, and down whose precipices cataracts of sparkling waters thunder. Unhappily the democratic plateau or platform does not keep that article in stock. Perhaps something like it might be worked up by playing spotlights upon pillars of smoke or gas and using the loud-speaker apparatus. But we soon see through these pretences.
No, we must take the loss with the gain. On the uplands there are no fine peaks. We must do without them while we stay there. Of course we could always, if we wished, go down again into the plains and valleys out of which we have climbed. We may even wander thither unwittingly. We may slide there. We may be pushed there. There are still many powerful nations dwelling at these lower levels, some contentedly, some even proudly. They often declare that life in the valleys is preferable. There is, they say, more variety, more beauty, more grace, more dignity, more true health and fertility than upon the arid highlands. They say this middle situation is better suited to human nature. The arts flourish there, and science need not be absent. Moreover, it is pleasing to look back over the plains and morasses through which our path has lain in the past, and remember in tradition the great years of pilgrimage. Then they point to the frowning crag, their venerated El Capitan or Il Duce, casting its majestic shadow in the evening light; and ask whether we have anything like that up there. We certainly have not.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 18, 2020, 17:07:11 pm
And a Boris Johnson speech when he was Foreign secretary and about the same age has Churchill

Your Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen, I want to begin on behalf of the UK by thanking High Commissioner Hussein for his service and for his tireless efforts for speaking up for human rights around the world.
And I'm delighted to be here because, at its best, this Council has shone a spotlight on appalling violations of human rights in specific countries - as we've just heard - and given a voice to people who would otherwise have suffered in silence.
Britain considers this Council to be part of the rules-based international system in which we believe and that we strive to protect.
And I will say that we share the view that a dedicated agenda item focused solely on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is disproportionate and damaging to the cause of peace and unless things change, we shall move next year to vote against all resolutions introduced under Item 7.
But I stress that that does not mean that we in the UK are blind to the value of this Council - including the work it could do on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under the right agenda item - and we support its emphasis on freedom of religion and expression and the empowerment of women.
Which brings me to my main point because after flying around the world for two years as UK Foreign Secretary, I have concluded that we could solve the majority of the world's most serious problems - from infant mortality to unemployment to civil war to the unsustainable loss of habitat because of population growth - indeed we could achieve virtually every sustainable development goal - if only we could provide every girl in the world with at least 12 years of quality education.
It is a global disgrace that, at this moment, 130 million girls are not in the classroom, female illiteracy in some countries is running at 60, 70 or 80 per cent, and there are bigoted fanatics who actually campaign to stop girls from going to school, including the numbskulls from Boko Haram who will raid schools, abduct children and inflict any atrocity in order to deny girls an education.
As recently as February, Boko Haram kidnapped 110 girls from a school in Dapchi and we all remember how 276 were taken from Chibok in 2014.
When I visited Borno state last year, I met girls who had been told they would be shot if they dared learn to read, as the Taliban shot Malala.
I am lost in admiration for those who press on with their studies in defiance of these threats - and for teachers who are brave enough to help - but the problem is global. Today, almost 800 million adults across the world cannot read or write - and two thirds of them are women.
Think of the wasted talent, the appalling opportunity cost to humanity.
But just imagine what we could achieve if we turned this upside down and ensured that every girl went to school and received the education they deserve?
If all girls went to secondary school, then infant mortality would be cut in half, saving three million young lives every year.
About 12 million children would not have their growth stunted by malnutrition.
The future wages of girls would rise by 12 per cent for every extra year in the classroom and with that prosperity you create jobs and therefore you strike a blow against the Boko Harams and the maladjusted chauvinist fanatics who overwhelmingly come from countries where women are under-educated.
And the conclusion is obvious: educating our daughters with the same care that we educate our sons is the single most powerful spur to development and progress, which is why, this year, the British Government has devoted an extra £500 million to the cause of female education.
We are helping another 1.4 million girls in 15 countries to receive a minimum of 12 years of quality education.
When we welcomed the representatives of 52 countries to London for the Commonwealth summit in April, all of them endorsed that target.
And I should say by the way, in case you don't know, Britain is one of a handful of countries that has a female Head of Government, a female Head of State and a female Head of the Judiciary.
And I have joined my friend Amina Mohammed, the Kenyan Cabinet Secretary, to form a Platform for Girls Education, a group of 12 influential people drawn from across the Commonwealth who will keep up the momentum.
But resources and political will are not the only constraints: even when schools and teachers are available, girls may still miss out.
If physical or sexual violence are commonplace, if dormitories are unsafe, if sanitary facilities are inadequate, then girls will be deterred from entering the classroom.
If they are married at an early age this may deprive them of the chance to go to school and the reality is that one girl in every 12 in the developing world is married before the age of 15.
Today, there are about 700 million women who were married in childhood and if the prevalence of child marriage remains unchanged, then that number will rise to nearly 1.2 billion by 2050.
All of these problems - including the prejudice and sexism that hold women back - will need to be addressed if we are to achieve the goal of universal female education.
I would respectfully appeal to every member of this Council to do whatever is necessary to eliminate child marriage, whether by passing new laws or enforcing existing ones.
And I would urge every country here today to sign the joint statement of principles on girls education and support resolutions during this session that condemn female genital mutilation and violence and discrimination against women.
And we should remember that mere attendance in school is not enough: we have to ensure that girls actually learn when they get there, which means that teachers need to be properly trained and opportunities improved for the most disadvantaged, including disabled girls.
But all these measurable and material benefits of which I have spoken cannot be the sole or even the primary reason why we must ensure that all girls go to school.
It's not just that this ambition will make us more prosperous and expand our GDPs - though it will do all of that and more.
I am here to appeal to all the men in suits, who are so adequately represented here and in positions of power around the world - there are quite a few - to do what is right.
We can build the schools and train the teachers and surmount all of the other barriers: in the end, it is only a question of priorities and of will.
This is one cause which attracts no dissenting voice and there is no reason to question the benefits or morality of what needs to be done.
So Mr President may I say for the sake of our common prosperity, for the sake of peace and for economic progress - but above all in the name of simple justice and fairness - let us give every girl in the world 12 years of quality education.
Thank you very much for your attention this morning.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 18, 2020, 17:11:45 pm
And another BJ because the above is a bit short...

Good morning everybody, it is fantastic to be here in this wonderful hotel, that I think that I opened or reopened. I opened many hotels across London in my time as Mayor and I definitely reopened this hotel at one stage Good morning everybody, it is fantastic to be here in this wonderful hotel, that I think that I opened or reopened. I opened many hotels across London in my time as Mayor and I definitely reopened this hotel at one stage and this is after all an example of the kind of infrastructure that you were just talking about Robin. It is an inspirational structure that was created many, many decades ago, over a hundred years ago, and it has been beautifully upgraded and it has stood the test of time and that is what I want to talk about this morning.

and this is after all an example of the kind of infrastructure that you were just talking about Robin. It is an inspirational structure that was created many, many decades ago, over a hundred years ago, and it has been beautifully upgraded and it has stood the test of time and that is what I want to talk about this morning.
All you young, thrusting Chatham House types look far too dynamic to remember the early 1980s or indeed the late 1970s. Do you? I certainly do.
I remember being chilled to the marrow not just by the newspaper graphics, the hundreds of nuclear missiles trained on this country by the Warsaw Pact.
Scarier still were the attempts by the UK government to reassure the population, the pamphlets and films that told you such things as how to build a fallout shelter.
You took several doors off their hinges and propped them up diagonally against a wall, reinforced by suitcases full of books, and then you were told to tune to Radio 4, where the contingency plan was to play endless re-runs of Just a Minute.
And there really was a time when British children knew all about the 4-minute warnings, and the perils of radiation sickness, and we all read a book called Where the Wind Blows by Raymond Briggs, and brooded, as I did as a teenager, on the horror of those weapons.
For decades now that threat has seemed to vanish. It went with the end of the Cold War.
We don't want it back.
That is why people are now watching with such interest - and the first stirrings of apprehension - the events in the Korean Peninsula.
Kim Jong Un has tested 19 missiles so far this year, and has conducted 4 of the 6 nuclear tests ever carried out by that country.
It is now widely accepted that Kim is coming closer to being able to launch a nuclear-armed ICBM at the continental United States.
I should stress that this has not only prompted outrage in America, but it is a prospect that has been unanimously condemned by Russia, by China, by the EU, to say nothing of the dismay of those quintessentially peaceable countries - Japan and South Korea.
It is this increased tempo of nuclear testing, coupled with florid outbursts of verbal belligerence, that have reawakened - even in this country - those forgotten fears.
The public can be forgiven for genuinely starting to wonder whether the nuclear sword of Damocles is once again held over the head of a trembling human race.
So now is perhaps a good moment, in a calm and dispassionate way, to take stock.
Before we reissue that old pamphlet called 'Protect and Survive', before we teach our kids how to hide under the desks or lay on stocks of baked beans or spam, let us look at the history of nuclear proliferation, how nuclear weapons have spread, and how we have collectively sought to contain their spread.
Back then, as now, most predictions were gloomy - and yet those gloomy predictions have been utterly confounded by events.
America was of course the first to use the bomb, in 1945; then the Soviet Union detonated a device at Semipalatinsk in 1949; then we were next, the UK, in 1952; then the French did their test in the Sahara in 1960.
At that point the then American presidential candidate, John F Kennedy, predicted that by 1964, within only 4 years, there would be 10, 15 or 20 nations that would acquire nuclear weapons.
As things have turned out, it is now almost 60 years after he issued his warning - and yes, the NPT has some notable non-signatories including India and Pakistan; and yet the number of nuclear-armed countries has yet to reach double figures.
This is on the face of it an absolutely astonishing statistic and an extraordinary achievement.
When you consider that every previous military development - from firearms to fighter jets - has spread among humanity like impetigo, you have to ask yourselves: why? Why have nuclear weapons been the great exception?
It can't just be the kit. They can't be so complex that only a handful of so-called advanced nations have the intellectual wherewithal to make them.
It is true that the process is laborious and highly expensive - but the basic technology is more than 70 years old and indeed has been taught in universities - if not schools - for decades, for generations.
The answer is partly that many countries wisely decided, after the war, that they were going to take shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by the United States.
Nations in both Europe and in Asia opted for this protection, a commitment that must be rated one of the greatest contributions by America to the unprecedented epoch of peace and prosperity that we have all been living through.
I should observe that some European countries found themselves under a rival umbrella provided by the Soviet Union, though at that stage they had no choice in the matter.
And it was that American offer - that guarantee - that made possible the global consensus embodied by the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
By this treaty 191 countries came together to recognise the special role of the 5 existing nuclear powers, and also to insist that there should be no further dispersal of such weapons.
Nuclear technology would be made available to other countries, provided it was used exclusively for civilian purposes.
That was a great diplomatic achievement.
It was an effort in which the UK - as one of the leading upholders of the post-war rules based international order - played a crucial role.
[political content removed]
That diplomacy has helped to make the world safer, more secure, more confident and therefore more prosperous.
It has helped avoid what might otherwise have been a Gadarene Rush to destruction, in which the world was turned into a great arena of Mexican stand-offs, a nuclear version of the final scene of Reservoir Dogs.
That far-sightedness is now needed more than ever, not only to keep the NPT, but also one of its most valuable complementary accords, the nuclear deal with Iran.
To grasp the importance of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, we should remember that just before it was signed in 2015, Iran had enough centrifuges and low-enriched uranium to be only months away from producing the essential material for at least one nuclear weapon.
Let us remember what the consequences would have been - for Iran and the world - if Tehran had gone down that road.
Never mind the response of Israel, or indeed the United States to the fact of nuclear weapons in the grip of the Iranians, a regime that has been capable of blood-curdling rhetoric about the mere existence of the 'Zionist entity'.
A nuclear-armed Iran would have placed irresistible pressure on neighbouring countries to up the ante, and to trigger an arms race in what is already one of the most volatile regions of the world.
Imagine all those mutually contaminating sectarian, dynastic and internecine conflicts of the Middle East today. Then turn the dial, and add a nuclear arms race.
Think of the nightmare that deal has avoided.
It is a nightmare we can continue to avoid if we are sensible, if we show the same generosity and wisdom as the negotiators of the NPT.
And first and most important it is vital to understand that President Trump has not withdrawn from the JCPOA. He has not junked it.
He has continued to waive nuclear-related sanctions against Iran, and having spoken to some of the most influential figures on Capitol Hill - none of them fans of the Iranian regime - I have absolutely no doubt that with determination and courage the JCPOA can be preserved.
This is not just because the essential deal is in the interests of Western security - though it is - but because it is profoundly in the interests of the Iranian people.
This is a great nation, of 80 million people - 2 thirds of whom are under the age of 30.
They are highly educated, both men and women.
They watch Youtube; they dance to music videos, even if it is in the privacy of their own home.
They use and understand technology and they are bursting with a capitalist and entrepreneurial spirit.
If we can show them that they are welcome in the great global market-place of ideas and innovation then, in time, a very different relationship is possible with the modern heirs, of what is after all, one of the greatest of all ancient civilisations.
That is the possibility the JCPOA holds open - not just averting a perilous and debilitating arms race, but ending the long and largely self-imposed exclusion of Iran from the global mainstream that so many millions of Iranians yearn to join.
Of course, we in the UK, we share with our American friends and with many of our allies - in Europe and across the Middle East - their legitimate concern over the disruptive behaviour of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in countries hundreds of miles from their borders.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 18, 2020, 17:12:52 pm
....
It is simply provocative and dangerous that Iran has supplied tens of thousands of rockets and missiles to Hizbollah in Lebanon - weapons that are even now pointing at Israel - but whose use would bring the most destructive retaliation not upon Iran - the responsible party - but upon the people of Lebanon.
It is no conceivable benefit to the tormented people of Yemen that Iran should be supplying missiles that Houthi rebels use routinely to strike targets in Saudi Arabia; behaviour which alas can only strengthen the convictions of those in the region who believe they have no choice but to respond to Iran's actions.
And frankly it's astonishing that the Iranians - who rightly complain that the world looked the other way when they suffered so tragically from the chemical weapons deployed by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s - should even now be abetting and concealing the crimes of Bashar al-Asad who has used the same methods against his own people.
So I think it's right that we should join with our American friends and allies to counter this kind of behaviour wherever possible.
But that does not mean for one minute that we should write Iran off, or that we should refuse to engage with Iran or that we should show disrespect to its people.
On the contrary, we should continue to work to demonstrate to that population in Iran that they will be better off under this deal and the path of re-engagement that it prescribes.
And that is the model - of toughness but engagement, each reinforcing the other - that we should have at the front of our mind as we try to resolve the tensions in the Korean Peninsula.
It is right that Rex Tillerson has specifically opened the door to dialogue.
He has tried to give some sensible reassurances to the regime, to enable them to take up this offer.
Remember the 4 Noes - that have been offered by the South Korean president and reinforced by the US Secretary of State.
No seeking regime change in North Korea; No seeking to force the collapse of North Korea's regime; No seeking to deploy US forces beyond the 38th parallel; No attempt to accelerate the reunification of Korea.
These are the commitments that we hope will encourage Kim Jong Un to halt his nuclear weapons programme, to come to the negotiating table, and thereby to take the only path that can guarantee the security of the region as a whole. You will often hear it said that in weighing up those options Kim must bear in mind the woeful precedents of those who disarmed.
Of Libya, where the leader listened to the blandishments of the West and gave up his nuclear weapons programme - only to be overthrown with Western connivance.
Or of Ukraine, which actually surrendered its nuclear arsenal, only to suffer the first forcible loss of territory in Europe since 1945.
It is therefore suggested that Kim would be sealing his own fate if he were to comply.
I reject those analogies.
What finished Gaddafi was an uprising of his own people, including on the streets of Tripoli.
Even if he had been able to perfect a nuclear arsenal in time, and even if it is true he had a justified reputation for mercurial and unpredictable behaviour, it seems unlikely that he would have decided to nuke his own capital - including himself.
As survival strategies go, that would have been eccentric even by his own standards.
As for Ukraine, the fundamental difference is that no one, not South Korea nor any other neighbour, has any designs on the national territory of North Korea.
And the crucial question Kim Jong Un surely needs to ask himself is whether his current activities are making Pyongyang any safer for himself and his regime.
No one, I'm sure no one in this room, certainly no one in the UK or around the world wants any kind of military solution to the problem. No one actively desires that outcome.
But Kim Jong Un and the world need to understand that when the 45th President of the United States contemplates a regime led by a man who not only threatens to reduce New York to "ashes", but who stands on the verge of acquiring the power to make good on his threat, I am afraid that the US President - whoever he or she might be - will have an absolute duty to prepare any option to keep safe not only the American people but all those who have sheltered under the American nuclear umbrella.
And I hope Kim will also consider this: that if his objective is to intimidate the US into wholesale withdrawal from East Asia, then it strikes me that his current course might almost be designed to produce the opposite effect.
Already President Moon of South Korea - hitherto seen as one of the political leaders most open to engagement with the North - is installing the US-made THAAD missile defences.
And in Japan and South Korea it is easy to imagine the growth of domestic pressure for those governments to take further steps to protect their own populations from a nuclear North Korea.
In short Pyongyang faces the same dilemma as Tehran:
By continuing to develop nuclear capabilities Kim risks provoking a reaction in the region that is at once defensive and competitive, that reduces not increases his security and therefore reduces not increases the survival chances of the regime.
And therefore I hope that Kim will see that it is no part of Juche - his family doctrine of national self-reliance - nor is it in his interest of national security to end up with an escalation of America's military presence in East Asia, let alone to run risks that could imperil his regime.
And until he understands that I am afraid that we have no choice collectively but to step up the pressure on Pyongyang.
It is one of the most encouraging developments this year that the UN Security Council - with the strong support of the UK - has unanimously passed three resolutions to tighten the economic ligature around the regime.
When I joined a debate on North Korea in the Security Council earlier this year, I was struck by the unaccustomed absence of discord.
For the first time the Chinese have agreed to impose strict limits on the export of oil to North Korea, which until now was taboo.
There has been an unmistakable change in Chinese policy, and that is warmly to be welcomed.
In his speech to the 19th Party Congress last week, President Xi hailed China's standing as a world power
And I would say there is no more urgent problem for China to address - nor any where Beijing has greater influence - than the threat to international security represented by the behaviour of North Korea.
There is also unprecedented discussion between China and the US on how to handle this crisis, a closeness, by the way, that I believe bodes well for the world; and I should again pay tribute to my colleague Rex Tillerson for his efforts.
Whatever we may think of the regime and its behaviour, the ruling elite of North Korea is in the end composed of human beings.
We must find ways of getting through to them, and at the same time not just toughening the sanctions regime but enforcing those already in place; and in this respect again, the Chinese hold the key.
This is the moment for North Korea's regime to change course - and if they do the world can show that it is once again capable of the diplomatic imagination that produced the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - arduously negotiated - and that after 12 years of continuous effort produced the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran.
It will not be easy, but the costs of failure could be catastrophic.
We cannot dis-invent nuclear weapons or wish them away; and the events on the Korean Peninsula are the clearest possible rejoinder to those [political content removed] who say that we should unilaterally cast aside our nuclear weapons.
To wield a nuclear deterrent, as this country does, is neither easy nor cheap; indeed it imposes a huge responsibility on this country.
We are one of the handful specifically recognised by the NPT to possess such dreadful weapons, and we do so not just in the name of our own security but - via NATO - for the protection of dozens of our allies.
And by holding that stockpile - a minimum stockpile, I should say, which has been reduced by half since its Cold War peak - we play our part in deterring the ambitions of rogue states.
It is 25 years since the end of the Cold War, and a new generation has grown up with no memory of the threat of a nuclear winter, and little education in the appalling logic of mutually assured destruction.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Their destruction, the full horror of what took place is now literally fading from living memory.
When people like Alun Chalfont drew up the NPT, those horrors were still fresh in the hearts of the world.
We must not be so forgetful or so complacent as to require a new lesson in what these weapons can do, or the price of failing to limit their spread.
The NPT is one of the great diplomatic achievements of the last century. It has stood the test of time.
In its restraint and its maturity it shows an unexpected wisdom on the part of humanity, and almost evolutionary instinct for the survival of the species.
It is the job of our generation now to preserve that agreement, and British diplomacy will be at the forefront of the endeavour.
Thank you all very much for your attention.

Published 23 October 2017
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 18, 2020, 17:25:28 pm
Crikey, reading Winston Churchill is like reading a wordsmith a poet. Johnson's is simplistic cliched ridden without vision. The last speech by Johnson shows how we are side lined and have no power in the North Korea talks. Because he talks about what USA are doing. And in fact reading through his speech is very reactionary.

North Korea could not strike the UK with Nuclear weapons! They did not want to.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: zoony on April 18, 2020, 20:00:47 pm
Sorry mate, did you really expect any of us to read all of that?! Would have got through War and peace quicker....
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 18, 2020, 21:25:54 pm
Quote from: zoony on April 18, 2020, 20:00:47 pmSorry mate, did you really expect any of us to read all of that?! Would have got through War and peace quicker....
I can understand that, they are long...well Churchill's essay is. All you need to read is the first paragraph of each. It is obvious Johnson is no Churchill. The language the way the sentences are constructed and the understanding and ideas are beyond anything Johnson put in to his two speeches. It is actually quite shocking to me that people say Johnson is anything like Churchill.
Johnson was trying to build a myth and like anything that Johnson does it does not hold up to scrutiny.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on April 18, 2020, 21:43:16 pm
TL;DR

Go for a bike ride, have a drink, smoke a fag and (Chur)chill.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 19, 2020, 12:31:44 pm
and Boris Johnson quotes

What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.

Orientals ... have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole

Outrageous that married couples should pay for 'the single mothers' desire to procreate independently of men.

"If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment."

"Families on lower incomes the women have absolutely no choice but to work, often with adverse consequences for family life and society as a whole - in that unloved and undisciplined children are more likely to become hoodies, NEETS, and mug you on the street corner."

"If gay marriage was OK... I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 19, 2020, 12:36:35 pm
Churchill at least has an excuse for been born in the late 19th century 1874. But some of what he said is pretty revolting too. Johnson has no excuse.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on April 19, 2020, 13:53:33 pm
Quote from: rufus the dawg on April 19, 2020, 12:31:44 pmand Boris Johnson quotes

What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies.

Orientals ... have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole

Outrageous that married couples should pay for 'the single mothers' desire to procreate independently of men.

"If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment."

"Families on lower incomes the women have absolutely no choice but to work, often with adverse consequences for family life and society as a whole - in that unloved and undisciplined children are more likely to become hoodies, NEETS, and mug you on the street corner."

"If gay marriage was OK... I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog."
The emboldened one was NOT a BoJo quote. It was by Taki in the Spectator.

The rest are all fair enough. The first one has been stripped from the context in which it was written.

I'm no Boris apologist, but I do object to things being taken out of context to besmirch people - unless I'm doing it, because I am in all ways superior to other people - please provide the full context in which things are said.

No excuse me, I'm off for a 100 mile bike ride - which is completely wrong according to current rules - so I can cough in the faces of the Troglodyte scum who inhabit the Peak District.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 19, 2020, 18:52:45 pm
fair point nick, I will do both...but will you read read it - TL DR. I will quote some more.  He had to apologise for

Quote from: Nïckslïkk2112 on April 19, 2020, 13:53:33 pmOrientals ... have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the other pole


Why because he was editor of the Spectator at the time....umm does it still stand then? Done in his name? And as Slim pointed out in the CV19 thread about the Lancet editor if he is editor is it done in his name?

He also had to apologise for the "piccaninnies" quote.
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 19, 2020, 18:58:23 pm
If Blair's so good at running the Congo, let him stay there

By Boris Johnson
12:01AM GMT 10 Jan 2002

HE'S back. The doors of the prime ministerial plane have been opened, and he has at last been seen at the top of the gangway. Our leader is returned to his benighted children; the pater patriae is home, and how lost his ministers have seemed without him.
For ages, it seems, Supertone has been orbiting in his taxpayer-funded jet, descending to bring his particular brand of humbug to the trouble spots of the world. He did the namaste in Bangalore, and lo, the warring faiths of the Indian subcontinent immediately rescheduled World War Three. For a full 120 minutes, he and Cherie shone the light of their countenances upon the people of Afghanistan, and, who knows, perhaps the place is now rife with feminism, habeas corpus and multi-party democracy.
What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness.
They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird. Like Zeus, back there in the Iliad, he has turned his shining eyes away, far over the lands of the Hippemolgoi, the drinkers of mares' milk. He has forgotten domestic affairs, and here, as it happens, in this modest little country that elected him, hell has broken loose.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, has been at war with Peter Hain about the timing of the plan to abolish the pound. Half the adolescent population seems to be trying to steal the mobile phones of the other half. Every female columnist in Fleet Street is now in a state of panic about the mumps, measles and rubella jab, waving their babies in the air and screaming for guidance from the First Father. Across Britain, the commuters groan and snarl as the Dave Sparts and Ned Ludds of the RMT bring the trains to a halt.
And now, to cap it all, one of Blair's very own ministers, the increasingly trusted and important Peter Hain, has broken off from his war with Straw to launch an attack on Stephen Byers. Today the Prime Minister will open his copy of The Spectator (which he once told me, through gritted teeth, that he rather enjoyed), to find that Hain has made a sensational admission. He tells Anne McElvoy that "we have the worst railways in Europe". That's it, Tony: out of the mouth of one of your own ministers.
After four and a half years of Labour government, British railways are now worse than those of Portugal, Greece and Romania. Slovak drivers actually turn up for work; Bulgarian leaves do not block the track; and the 8.02 from Zagreb to Split is infinitely more to be trusted than anything running from Waterloo to Basingstoke.
What Hain has said is not only unpatriotic. It is true. It is therefore a gaffe. How can a senior minister make such a confession, and not be punished? Will Hain survive until the weekend? Of course he will, because the Government, in its arrogance, knows that it can continue to blame the Tories. It was the damnosa hereditas, they will say. It was the botched privatisation. It is only now, says Blair, that the terrible effects are being felt on the nation's arteries, just as a heart patient spectacularly collapses after 18 blissful years of eating pork pies. Does anyone really believe this account?
For all its faults, privatisation led to a 25 per cent increase in railway use; it allowed huge quantities of cash to be raised on the markets - £2 billion in 2000 alone; and, in spite of the crashes at Paddington and Hatfield, you were far safer travelling on the privatised railways than you were on British Rail.
What has caused the railways' recent cardiac infarct has been four years of Prescottian inertia, coupled with a hysterical reaction to the Hatfield crash, which drove Railtrack into a bankruptcy that secretly or openly delighted every section of the Labour Party. The railways have been managed fantastically badly by this Government; and it is good of Hain to accept the gravity of the problem.
Since he is in this candid mood, he might as well go on to say that we have one of the worst health services in Europe. To pluck a statistic at random: if you are a British woman with leukaemia, you have 21 per cent less chance of living another five years than a German woman with leukaemia. No one is suggesting that the problems of the NHS began in 1997; it is just that Labour does not seem to have any intention of solving them.
One of the reasons the Germans are healthier than us is that they are able to spend more on health, because roughly half their hospitals are independently funded. Is that a solution Blair is prepared to discuss? Or is Labour prepared to learn from France? There they stop the wasting of GPs' time by imposing a 25 per cent upfront charge - which is refundable later - on everyone who calls to see the doctor.
And if Hain were really super-truthful, he would admit that we have a philistine education system, in which the teaching of foreign languages is at an all-time low. My new pro-European policy for the Tories is to crusade for the teaching of French and German in state schools, so that we can all go over there and see what they do for ourselves. And if Blair continues to swank around the stratosphere, and ignore the problems at home, he might as well find another country to run. If they will elect him.

Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: Nïckslïkk2112 on April 19, 2020, 21:30:45 pm
And if you really read the above then you can see that he is alluding to the fact that he believes that BLiar saw himself as the Great White Saviour for the black man who should be grateful to him. Just sayin'
Title: Re: We need to talk about Boris
Post by: rufus the dawg on April 19, 2020, 22:39:29 pm
It can all be said without the disgusting language. Why use it? It serves no purpose because people talk about the the inflammatory language and not the criticism of Blair. Johnson does it though for he own self publicity. We talk about Johnson not Blair.

Yes criticise Blair. Fine 

Its a pretty rubbishy written article in my view.