Should he stay or should he go?

[Spud]

My take on partygate is it wasn't at all out of order for Boris or any of the others to have a social gathering, as long as it was reasonably socially distanced. The problem is the rules themselves, which were way over the top and in the worst case led to a child being beaten to death at home.

[Nearly Sane]

My take on partygate is it wasn't at all out of order for Boris or any of the others to have a social gathering, as long as it was reasonably socially distanced. The problem is the rules themselves, which were way over the top and in the worst case led to a child being beaten to death at home.

The main issue here is Johnson's continual lying to the country and parliament.

[Anchorman]

My take on partygate is it wasn't at all out of order for Boris or any of the others to have a social gathering, as long as it was reasonably socially distanced. The problem is the rules themselves, which were way over the top and in the worst case led to a child being beaten to death at home.

   


Yert the  lying hypocrite MADE, endorsed and propogated the rules.
That the buffoon treated them with scorn says all you need to know about him.

[Spud]

   


Yert the  lying hypocrite MADE, endorsed and propogated the rules.
That the buffoon treated them with scorn says all you need to know about him.

Well he was under pressure to make them, and I think any rule has to be followed as far as one's conscience allows - so for example he tried to get out of self isolating the whole 2 weeks - understandable if he's prime minister. It's also understand le that he would make light of breaking them if there is a clamour for his head from his opponents.

[Nearly Sane]

Well he was under pressure to make them, and I think any rule has to be followed as far as one's conscience allows - so for example he tried to get out of self isolating the whole 2 weeks - understandable if he's prime minister. It's also understand le that he would make light of breaking them if there is a clamour for his head from his opponents.

He lied about it in the HoC.

[Aruntraveller]

Well he was under pressure to make them, and I think any rule has to be followed as far as one's conscience allows - so for example he tried to get out of self isolating the whole 2 weeks - understandable if he's prime minister. It's also understand le that he would make light of breaking them if there is a clamour for his head from his opponents.

What are you not getting?

He set the rules (which were laws so let's not make them less than they were), he should lead by example if he wants people to follow the rules.

Conscience was not allowed as a credible defence for all those who were fined during lockdown.

Many people were not allowed to hold the hands of their loved ones as those loved ones died, yet No.10's inhabitants think it is ok to get drunk together. It really is just taking the piss out of us. As ever with Conservatives one rule for them and another for the little people. Another case in point Non Dom status. If you can afford to fork out 40 or 50 grand a year you can miraculously avoid taxes. A loophole not available to the likes of you and me.

FFS they are taking people for mugs and some people just sit there and say "yes please let me lick some more of your shit up for you".

[Spud]

What are you not getting?

He set the rules (which were laws so let's not make them less than they were), he should lead by example if he wants people to follow the rules.

Conscience was not allowed as a credible defence for all those who were fined during lockdown.

Many people were not allowed to hold the hands of their loved ones as those loved ones died, yet No.10's inhabitants think it is ok to get drunk together. It really is just taking the piss out of us. As ever with Conservatives one rule for them and another for the little people. Another case in point Non Dom status. If you can afford to fork out 40 or 50 grand a year you can miraculously avoid taxes. A loophole not available to the likes of you and me.

FFS they are taking people for mugs and some people just sit there and say "yes please let me lick some more of your shit up for you".

Labour wanted far stricter rules. Not seeing loved ones was a result of a clamour from all angles to Get Rid of the Virus. Ok he broke the rules and lied. Frankly cohabiting in no 10 was enough to put me off. Let him pay the fine and vote him out at the next election. No further action necessary.

[Maeght]

Labour wanted far stricter rules. Not seeing loved ones was a result of a clamour from all angles to Get Rid of the Virus. Ok he broke the rules and lied. Frankly cohabiting in no 10 was enough to put me off. Let him pay the fine and vote him out at the next election. No further action necessary.

Disagree.

[Nearly Sane]

Labour wanted far stricter rules. Not seeing loved ones was a result of a clamour from all angles to Get Rid of the Virus. Ok he broke the rules and lied. Frankly cohabiting in no 10 was enough to put me off. Let him pay the fine and vote him out at the next election. No further action necessary.

I want him held responsible for continually lying in the HoC, why do you wabt him let off for that?

[Nearly Sane]

.

[Spud]

I want him held responsible for continually lying in the HoC, why do you wabt him let off for that?

Because the Tory party aren't going to take action, so it will be up to voters.

[Nearly Sane]

Because the Tory party aren't going to take action, so it will be up to voters.

I want the Speaker of the House to take action.

[Aruntraveller]

Labour wanted far stricter rules

Even if that is true, how is it relevant?

Not seeing loved ones was a result of a clamour from all angles to Get Rid of the Virus.

No, it was a result of trying to stop the spread of the virus, as was not holding gatherings of people for social activities. You know stop the virus from spreading so that you get fewer loved ones in hospital not more.

Ok he broke the rules and lied.

To parliament, which has previously been a resigning issue as a matter of principle.

Frankly cohabiting in no 10 was enough to put me off.

Irrelevant. If you are going to start looking for what you consider to be "moral" behaviour all the time from any human being then you really have learnt nothing in your time on the planet.

Let him pay the fine and vote him out at the next election.

Why? You are happy to let a proven liar go on leading the country. Voting him out at the next election is not a done deal. He is doing his best to fix the system to give him the best possible chance of getting re-elected. So no, not good enough. The rot and stench of corruption need to stop now before the system is completely wrecked.

[SusanDoris]

Okay, I've read all the abovbe vitriolic posts. It's Conservative MPs who will choose which candidates are put forward to members to choose for their next PM. If they do not choose to do that, then he stays where he is. If you really all think that everything he has done is wrong, and you're going to vote Labour, SNP or LibDem next time anyway, tell them to put forward a leader who would have handled everything, and I mean everything, and not made mistakes or told even a small lie. You can view everything the PM has done through the fiercely one-sided viewers you are wearing but if you cannot find anything at all he has ever done  which you can approve of, then maybe your idealism and demands for perfection are perhaps completely unrealistic.  And that would be a pity and I think and hope you are all more reasonable than that. Maybe you could take a step bak and take a wider look ... ...

[Nearly Sane]

Okay, I've read all the abovbe vitriolic posts. It's Conservative MPs who will choose which candidates are put forward to members to choose for their next PM. If they do not choose to do that, then he stays where he is. If you really all think that everything he has done is wrong, and you're going to vote Labour, SNP or LibDem next time anyway, tell them to put forward a leader who would have handled everything, and I mean everything, and not made mistakes or told even a small lie. You can view everything the PM has done through the fiercely one-sided viewers you are wearing but if you cannot find anything at all he has ever done  which you can approve of, then maybe your idealism and demands for perfection are perhaps completely unrealistic.  And that would be a pity and I think and hope you are all more reasonable than that. Maybe you could take a step bak and take a wider look ... ...

I don't think having a leader that has not repeatedly lied to the HoC is a demand for perfection, is it?

[Aruntraveller]

Okay, I've read all the abovbe vitriolic posts. It's Conservative MPs who will choose which candidates are put forward to members to choose for their next PM. If they do not choose to do that, then he stays where he is. If you really all think that everything he has done is wrong, and you're going to vote Labour, SNP or LibDem next time anyway, tell them to put forward a leader who would have handled everything, and I mean everything, and not made mistakes or told even a small lie. You can view everything the PM has done through the fiercely one-sided viewers you are wearing but if you cannot find anything at all he has ever done  which you can approve of, then maybe your idealism and demands for perfection are perhaps completely unrealistic.  And that would be a pity and I think and hope you are all more reasonable than that. Maybe you could take a step bak and take a wider look ... ...

Perfection is impossible, mistakes are always made by any politician we all understand that. It is the sheer scale of incompetence and then the industrial quantities of lies manufactured to cover up said incompetence that is staggering and which I might add renders your support for him all the more puzzling. Rationality does not only apply to religion. 

Is it too much to hope for some honesty, some compassion for your fellow human beings, and some hard work?

Johnson does none of this. He is not worthy to be a PM.

[SusanDoris]

Perfection is impossible, mistakes are always made by any politician we all understand that. It is the sheer scale of incompetence and then the industrial quantities of lies manufactured to cover up said incompetence that is staggering and which I might add renders your support for him all the more puzzling. Rationality does not only apply to religion. 

Is it too much to hope for some honesty, some compassion for your fellow human beings, and some hard work?

Johnson does none of this. He is not worthy to be a PM.

I do not 'support' him, I simply point out that there is no-one available, or being put forward, as a strong and more effective alternative PM at the moment. Even if there was such a person available, he or she cannot just walk into No. 10 and take over.

Do you really think that everything he says or does is wrong? A lie? Is not compassionate in any way? Or do you think everything he does is wrong because of the things he actually has has done wrong?

[Gordon]

I do not 'support' him, I simply point out that there is no-one available, or being put forward, as a strong and more effective alternative PM at the moment. Even if there was such a person available, he or she cannot just walk into No. 10 and take over.

Do you really think that everything he says or does is wrong? A lie? Is not compassionate in any way? Or do you think everything he does is wrong because of the things he actually has has done wrong?

He is a serial liar: presumably somewhere among Tory MPs there is at least one of them who knows the difference between truth and lies.

He needs to be disposed of immediately, and since it seems that enough Tory MPs can't as yet see this, or if they can then they aren't prepared to act, does not reflect well on them or their party.

[SusanDoris]

P.S. to my previous post: I do realise of course that having a strong rant here against Boris is satisfying for those so much against the Conservative Party.

This thread has been an interesting read for someone like me who really cannot get passionate about politics!

[Outrider]

I do not 'support' him, I simply point out that there is no-one available, or being put forward, as a strong and more effective alternative PM at the moment.

I put forward the turd some neighbour's dog left in my garden overnight, so you no longer have that excuse. Starmer, Davey, Denyer/Ramsay, Sturgeon... all of them more trustworthy than Johnson.

Even if there was such a person available, he or she cannot just walk into No. 10 and take over.

Even if? The only current party leader who is arguably less suited is Neil Hamilton, and then it's a coin flip.

Do you really think that everything he says or does is wrong? A lie?

Everything, probably not. Can we trust any of enough to risk it - no. He has a demonstrable track record of lying in each and every forum he's had access to, from his journalism through his support for Brexit, and then onto his career as Foreign Secretary and now Prime Minister.

Is not compassionate in any way?

Not that I've seen any evidence of, no. He appears to have a disinterest in anyone else and a self-importance that leans towards an amateur diagnosis that he's a sociopath.

Or do you think everything he does is wrong because of the things he actually has has done wrong?

Are the many, many, many, many demonstrable things he has done wrong not enough? Even if you disagree with the balance of interests he represents politically, he's a fundamentally dishonest, callous, obnoxiously self-important twat. There are competent, professional, thoughtful Conservative politicians that I disagree with on policy but can accept on the basis of the parliamentary system we have in this country, but that a party would put that cockwomble up as their leader is just inconceivable to me.

O.

[Anchorman]

I put forward the turd some neighbour's dog left in my garden overnight, so you no longer have that excuse. Starmer, Davey, Denyer/Ramsay, Sturgeon... all of them more trustworthy than Johnson.

Even if? The only current party leader who is arguably less suited is Neil Hamilton, and then it's a coin flip.

Everything, probably not. Can we trust any of enough to risk it - no. He has a demonstrable track record of lying in each and every forum he's had access to, from his journalism through his support for Brexit, and then onto his career as Foreign Secretary and now Prime Minister.

Not that I've seen any evidence of, no. He appears to have a disinterest in anyone else and a self-importance that leans towards an amateur diagnosis that he's a sociopath.

Are the many, many, many, many demonstrable things he has done wrong not enough? Even if you disagree with the balance of interests he represents politically, he's a fundamentally dishonest, callous, obnoxiously self-important twat. There are competent, professional, thoughtful Conservative politicians that I disagree with on policy but can accept on the basis of the parliamentary system we have in this country, but that a party would put that cockwomble up as their leader is just inconceivable to me.

O.   


Accurate summary.

[Aruntraveller]

This thread has been an interesting read for someone like me who really cannot get passionate about politics!

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

1. Why bother responding in that case. (for example, it is very rare you will see me post anything about sport because I don't give even one flying fuck for it. So I don't bother)

2. You are (or were until very recently) a member of the Conservative Party. That sort of undermines your claim about not being passionate about politics.

[SusanDoris]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

The answer is simpler than that - my decreasing levels of energy and available activities leave me with a lack of things to occupy my mind. The Saturday DT crosswords are too often  more like toughies than more aimed at the weekend solver and, much as I am still enjoying re-reading 'Origins', it is not the same as reading visually.

1. Why bother responding in that case. (for example, it is very rare you will see me post anything about sport because I don't give even one flying fuck for it. So I don't bother)

I suppose Politics counts as a last resort for me!

2. You are (or were until very recently) a member of the Conservative Party. That sort of undermines your claim about not being passionate about politics.

No, it just means I used to do helpful things such as delivering leaflets (I'd had to leave teaching with  minimal warning) and the Club organised days out and the food was good. Also I got to know some interesting people.

[Aruntraveller]

You delivered leaflets and you claim you are not passionate. How is your cognitive dissonance coming along?


SusanDoris read this and tell me I'm wrong to say he is unfit for office:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/19/1000-days-of-boris-johnson-as-prime-minister-proroguing-parliament-partygate

Or if you think The Guardian is too left-wing try Peter Oborne who is not left-wing at all and is in fact a Tory:

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

This, for me, goes way beyond the fact that Johnson is a Conservative PM, it is the fact that he is totally unfit for office, in no way that any previous leader of any party has been. If you are unable to see that then all your claims about looking at issues rationally can be dismissed as nonsense because you are unable to look at this man's record dispassionately and conclude that he is a disaster for our economy, our health, and our democracy.

One final quote for you from his old school (Eton):

 "Boris really has adopted a disgracefully cavalier attitude to his classical studies. [He] sometimes seems affronted when criticised for what amounts to a gross failure of responsibility (and surprised at the same time that he was not appointed Captain of the school for the next half).

"I think he honestly believes that it is churlish of us not to regard him as an exception, one who should be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else."

Does that resonate at all?

[Harrowby Hall]

 I recall seeing an example of Alexander Johnson's characteristic behaviour which had been recorded and shown in a (I think) BBC news broadcast.
It was at a time, at the beginning of his term as prime minister, when there was concern about about the number of people who were openly sleeping rough and one particular case had become iconic.
A local BBC news reporter showed a photo of the individual concerned on his mobile phone to Johnson, ho snatched the phone out of the reporter's hands and told the reporter to go away. The reporter asked for the phone and Johnson told him to go away. This was a public display of bullying ... and also of criminal behaviour: theft.
I believe that the phone was returned later but that did not change the fact that Johnson had deliberately deprived another person of his property and had the reporter made a formal complaint to a police officer then Johnson could have been charged and found guilty of a criminal act ... of which a video record existed.
If only ...