Should he stay or should he go?

[SusanDoris]

Indeed it is - anyone with a shred of integrity would have already resigned.
He's clearly not going to go easily. The police questionnaire may well be a lose/lose bear trap. Answer yes and he'll be fined (effectively a conviction) and it is difficult to see how he survives this. Moreover if he accepts a fine he will have, effective, admitted that he lied to parliament, which is a resigning issue. Try to claim he wasn't there, it wasn't a party etc etc and he runs the risk of going down the Chris Huhne route - it wasn't the speeding fine that got him, it was perverting the course of justice that did for him by claiming his wife was driving. So if Boris lies on the questionnaire the sanction might not be just a fine, but jail time as perverting the course of justice is a much more serious offence than speeding or partying during lock-down.
Yet - I suspect they are planning the optimal moment. Currently it is still easy to 'wait and see' - the time to strike, I imagine will be when (if) he is found guilty of breaking the lockdown law. And remember that those plotting against him don't just need to trigger a VONC - they need to win it. They will want the actual vote to take place when their colleagues cannot be in 'wait and see mode'.

More ifs and what-ifs. Or just maybe more people will consider that if an MP steps forward to take the PM's place, the press will be taking a close look at his/her past too; or that those who would be voting think there are no perfect people, and if anyone thinks they are without fault, then they are seriously deluded! That might make them think that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

Perhaps the news of  police corruption and por attitudes from too many might not want to take whatever they say about Boris as seriously as they might have done.

Whatever the ifs and reasons, I think Boris will stil be in post for a while yet.

[ProfessorDavey]

More ifs and what-ifs.

So what - we are speculating about what may happen next.

Or just maybe more people will consider that if an MP steps forward to take the PM's place, the press will be taking a close look at his/her past too; or that those who would be voting think there are no perfect people, and if anyone thinks they are without fault, then they are seriously deluded! That might make them think that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

I thought you considered ifs and what-ifs to be dismissed - yet this whole section is nothing more than a series of ifs and what-ifs.

But on your speculation - well firstly the 'people' we need to consider here are Tory MPs. Secondly, while I agree that any potential new PM will receive extreme scrutiny I don't agree that every potential will be like Boris. People have know for years that Boris is unscrupulous, dishonest and dodgy in the extreme all the way back to his dealings with Darius Guppy in 1990. So not all politicians are like Johnson so it isn't a case of better than the one you don't. Indeed I'm not sure that any politician with credible aspiration to be PM comes anything close to being like Johnson in terms of dishonesty etc, with perhaps the exception of Grant Shapps.

Perhaps the news of  police corruption and por attitudes from too many might not want to take whatever they say about Boris as seriously as they might have done.

Sorry Susan - you've got it the wrong way around. One of the (many) criticisms of the Met has been their failure to investigate the parties at no10. Their ridiculous claims that there wasn't sufficient evidence to investigate when there were photographs. Their claims that they don't investigate retrospective crimes So the issue isn't that people consider that the Met Police will hang him out to dry - no it is that they have done everything they can to prevent holding him to account. So if they let him off, particularly if they fine others, there will be a general howl of whitewash.

[Gordon]

That might make them think that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

If the 'devil you know' is a proven liar with narcissistic tendencies and who exhibits naked self-interest then, and once excluding the obvious equally suspect alternatives (Rees Mogg, Raab, Patel etc), there must presumably a Tory MP who would be an improvement of sorts.

Hard to imagine that there is worse than Johnson in the Tory party.

 

[Aruntraveller]

That might make them think that the devil you know is better than the one you don't.

Seriously? Then we'd never improve on anything if we took that attitude. Better the gaslight you know that that dodgy electric bulb.

Never mind that gas was more prone to starting fires, was dirtier, and not as illuminating, let's stick with what we know.

Well, you claim to be all about being realistic. Then be realistic, see Johnson for the disaster he is for this country and do something about it.

[SusanDoris]

And yet, and yet ... ... he's still there! And was voted there not so long ago in spite of his history as related in one of above posts!

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet, and yet ... ... he's still there!

You are correct ... for now.

And was voted there not so long ago in spite of his history as related in one of above posts!

Irrelevant - May, Cameron, Blair and Thatcher all went mid term having won an election just a couple of years previously. And he won in 2019 in large part because he was up against Corbyn, whose history was equally unpleasant (albeit in different ways).

[Aruntraveller]

And yet, and yet ... ... he's still there! And was voted there not so long ago in spite of his history as related in one of above posts!

But do you think he's good for the country or do you think we would benefit from a change of PM?

[SusanDoris]

But do you think he's good for the country or do you think we would benefit from a change of PM?

And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!

[Nearly Sane]

And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!

I'll just take one that doesn't lie to parliament and break the law. You on the other hand vote for a party where you think those standards are too high.

[Aruntraveller]

And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!

And I come back to my gas/electricity lighting. How can you compare any PM to a current, also acting PM. That statement makes no sense.

AS I said to a friend on FB recently when he also said something of a similar nature - "all politicians lie" was his take.

I replied comparing Johnson to other politicians in regard to lying is like comparing somebody who has the odd drag on a ciggy every now and then with a crack whore. There really is not a comparison (well there is, there's Trump but that's a digression to far) he is appalling and should go.

Rampant fraud, lying to the Queen, breaking the law, trying to get a journalist beaten up, making the poor, poorer, and the rich, richer are all things that you think are good for the country. The list is so much longer but I haven't got the time.

That you should even think a qualified yes is possible, speaks poorly of the regard you hold for the law, poorer sections of society, honesty and violence. And the Queen.

[ProfessorDavey]

So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country.

So come on then - give us some examples of how you think he is good for the country right now - not harking back to sometime in the past. Right now - how is the country benefiting from his and his government's leadership.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!

You don't know whether there is any talent above Johnson or not but hazarding a guess there are probably a few. They of course would start their prime ministership having had the masterclass in how not to be prime minister.
To your critics Susan I would say this, ''what do you expect from an increasingly secular SusanDoris?''

[Nearly Sane]

You don't know whether there is any talent above Johnson or not but hazarding a guess there are probably a few. They of course would start their prime ministership having had the masterclass in how not to be prime minister.
To your critics Susan I would say this, ''what do you expect from an increasingly secular SusanDoris?''

WTF does 'secular' have to do with this?

[Aruntraveller]

To your critics Susan I would say this, ''what do you expect from an increasingly secular SusanDoris?''

You really like to shoehorn a digestive biscuit into a platypus don't you?

WTF has it got to do with her being secular. By your reasoning, I should support Johnson. So away with your secular paranoia. I mean your paranoia about secularism.

[Gordon]

And here again, we come up against the problem of not having a current, also acting, PM to compare him with. So, I give a qualified yes to is he good for the country. His personal example is not highly moral, but if he tried to be spotless, he'd be laughed out of his job. Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!

He's an incompetent lying fuckwit and, moreover, he's a Tory: and given the current state of the Tory party he's not even clearing a bar that is so low you could trip over it.

[Anchorman]

He's an incompetent lying fuckwit and, moreover, he's a Tory: and given the current state of the Tory party he's not even clearing a bar that is so low you could trip over it.

   



#
Look on the bright side....as 'minister for the union', he's living up to our expectations......er.....

[SusanDoris]

mmmmmmm, well now, let me see ....

Just because I say one thing does not automatically mean I think the opposite!

'good for the country' does not need specific examples from me - and it's more a case of being the least worst, bearing in mind that to try to install another probably won't work.

Today I shall not be thinking about politics.

[SteveH]

Nobody expects saints as PMs! We certainly don't get them!

Of course nobody expects saints, but I think we have a right to expect a PM to be truthful and not corrupt, and not to treat the electorate with contempt or be completely self-serving. When any one, in relation to a political leader, say's "s/he's not a saint", or "nobody expects saints", it's a sure sign that they're trying to defend the indefensible. I think it's the straw man falacy - NS would know.

[Nearly Sane]

Hmm...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1496534446287331329.html

[SusanDoris]

Hmm...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1496534446287331329.html

Wel, yes, it's a topsy-turvy world, but we're stuck with it at the moment. Supposing Labour were in power, do you think they would have managed the whole thing much better? If you think the answer is yes, can you say - briefly! - why?

[jeremyp]

Wel, yes, it's a topsy-turvy world, but we're stuck with it at the moment. Supposing Labour were in power, do you think they would have managed the whole thing much better? If you think the answer is yes, can you say - briefly! - why?

I think they would  have been about as incompetent but in different ways. We would probably have locked down two weeks earlier than we did. There would have been less corruption involved in obtaining PPE supplies and other necessary infrastructure etc but also more shortages and chaos. I think the initial roll out of vaccines would have been slower but we would still be about where we are now with them. We would not now be pretending the pandemic is all over in order to save the PM's job.

Added to that, we would still be in the EU customs union so the economic disaster that is the inevitable consequence of the lock down and the cost of the furlough payments would be slightly mitigated.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the initial roll out of vaccines would have been slower but we would still be about where we are now with them.

Not sure why you think that initial vaccine roll out would have been slower - I see no reason why a different government would have taken a differing view on vaccine procurement, and the roll out itself was largely coordinated by and driven through the NHS. The UK having such a national service was very helpful in ensuring that vaccines could be rolled out at speed. Don't see why that would have been different with an alternative government. And seeing as health is devolved, we've actually done the experiment - the devolved nations, operating under different governments and parties all rolled out the vaccines at pretty well identical pace.

[jeremyp]

Not sure why you think that initial vaccine roll out would have been slower - I see no reason why a different government would have taken a differing view on vaccine procurement, and the roll out itself was largely coordinated by and driven through the NHS. The UK having such a national service was very helpful in ensuring that vaccines could be rolled out at speed. Don't see why that would have been different with an alternative government. And seeing as health is devolved, we've actually done the experiment - the devolved nations, operating under different governments and parties all rolled out the vaccines at pretty well identical pace.

But the critical thing in making sure the roll out was quick was actually having the vaccines. Th government moved very fast to sign contracts with the suppliers. I think a Labour government would have taken longer and therefore been further back in the queue. Don't forget that this would be a Labour government run by Jeremy Corbyn, the single most useless politician to grace the Labour front bench, ever. In fact, now I think about it, the entire response would probably have been completely chaotic.

[SusanDoris]

I think they would  have been about as incompetent but in different ways. We would probably have locked down two weeks earlier than we did. There would have been less corruption involved in obtaining PPE supplies and other necessary infrastructure etc but also more shortages and chaos. I think the initial roll out of vaccines would have been slower but we would still be about where we are now with them. We would not now be pretending the pandemic is all over in order to save the PM's job.

Added to that, we would still be in the EU customs union so the economic disaster that is the inevitable consequence of the lock down and the cost of the furlough payments would be slightly mitigated.

Thank you for your reply. It's the rock or a hard place, isn't it.

[Aruntraveller]

Newsthump in unexpectedly sombre and sensible mode:

If Boris says he "didn't realise at the time" that he was breaking the rules, then fair enough.  We've all worked with simpletons who failed to understand clear and simple instructions.
The question is, do we want one of them as the Prime Minister?
The alternative, of course, is that he DID understand the rules, but decided to ignore them.  Again, we've all worked with arrogant narcissists who believed the rules were for the 'other people'.
The question is, do we want one of them as the Prime Minister?