Should he stay or should he go?

[Aruntraveller]

Changing the leader during a war is ok - I was specifically talking about whether other potential leaders would be as supportive of arming Ukraine as Johnson. If they are then fine. If they are not, then I'd rather keep Johnson for now despite him breaking the law and misleading Parliament and every other stupid thing he has done in the past -  if that helps Ukraine. Let's face it, Ukraine needs all the help it can get in terms of arms. 

As it will only be a Tory taking over then I think their response would be similar, although it should be pointed out that the links the Conservatives have with Russian oligarchs and the donations received don't totally convince me that their response has been all it should have been.

As I previously pointed out on another thread at least one Labour leader had the measure of the Russian regime:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs

(Note for those likely to rant about Left wing journalists, it is a right wing journalist who wrote this)

If Starmer was the PM I have no doubt that he would have reacted in a similar way to the current government possibly even more robustly as Labour is not enmeshed in Russian money in the way that the Tories are.

What a shame we are so blinded by the propaganda pumped out by Non doms in this country.

[ProfessorDavey]

As it will only be a Tory taking over then I think their response would be similar, although it should be pointed out that the links the Conservatives have with Russian oligarchs and the donations received don't totally convince me that their response has been all it should have been.

As I previously pointed out on another thread at least one Labour leader had the measure of the Russian regime:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs

(Note for those likely to rant about Left wing journalists, it is a right wing journalist who wrote this)

If Starmer was the PM I have no doubt that he would have reacted in a similar way to the current government possibly even more robustly as Labour is not enmeshed in Russian money in the way that the Tories are.

What a shame we are so blinded by the propaganda pumped out by Non doms in this country.

Yes - I think that's right.

There has been a very broad consensus on support for Ukraine (with one major exception that I'll come to later), so I cannot see any credible evidence that a different PM from the current government, nor if Starmer were PM that they'd have acted differently.

Where there hasn't been consensus is over support for refugees, and here the Government has been absolutely useless - creating bureaucracy, delay and embedding a system where they fail to take their responsibility as a government to support the process of placing refugees who need support with people who are prepared to support. The Homes for Ukraine scheme is laughable as it is predicated on a UK person with a home knowing a refugee needing support, and in most cases they simply don't.

So on refugees I suspect if there was a change in leader it wouldn't be any worse, but might be a hell of a lot better.

[ProfessorDavey]

But you, like me,  cannot think of a person to take the PM's place.

How very odd Susan.

Just a few posts ago you indicated that you voted for Jeremy Hunt rather than Boris in the leadership election just a couple of years ago. So presumably you prefer him as leader to Boris. Hunt is, of course, still around and seems to me to be a perfectly credible candidate. Last time out he attained sufficient support from MPs to be on the ballot paper so no reason why he shouldn't again. Add to that that he has been detached from the current mess of Government as he's not been a minister, he's had a 'good' pandemic as chair of the health select committee and doesn't seem to have the obvious sleaze baggage of many of the other main contenders (non-dom, tax evasion etc).

So why aren't you championing your chap Hunt (he was your preferred person previously) - you certainly claimed you preferred him to Boris.

Or maybe we are just engaging in further by-the-book Save Big Dog tory central office tactics. Excuse number 25 - 'well we can't get rid of Boris unless we have an obvious replacement'.

[ProfessorDavey]

I repeat: Just because I say he should not resign at the moment does not imply that I support him.

Laughable.

We have a binary choice - either Boris stays as PM or he goes.

A large majority of the public want him to go, there have been vociferous calls for him to go in parliament and not just on the opposition benches but from members of his own party.

If you think he should stay in that binary choice then you are, without a shadow of doubt, supporting him.

[ProfessorDavey]

Too many if's. Dream on!

Actually there are no if's, just when.

It isn't a matter of if Boris goes, but when - he will go either through resignation or being kicked out eventually. And when he goes there will be a new PM - again not if. The only uncertainties are around when he goes and who takes over.

[ProfessorDavey]

It depends on how the question is framed and the response depends on what people think at the moment they are ticking the yes or the no box. And yes they are accurate at the time, but things change all the time. I certainly would not alter my thinkiing or reasoning as a result of any such poll.

Which is, of course, why you need to look at a range of polls over a period of time. And I'm interested in this and closely follow another Political MB that spends large amounts of time obsessing over polling.

So there have been numerous polls over the past few months asking (using a variety of wording) whether Boris should go or not. All have found strong majorities (typically about two to one) wanting him to go.

You can stick your head in the sands all you like, but that does alter the evidence. You can hope things might change in the future - sure they might do, although I think there has been a tipping point in public opinion on Boris and there is no way back from that. However a change might not be in the direction you want.

I certainly would not alter my thinkiing or reasoning as a result of any such poll.

You might not, but your fellow party members who are MPs most certainly will. Once they perceive Boris as an electoral liability rather than an electoral asset he is toast. And they will gauge this from the polling (both opinion polling and the upcoming local elections and Wakefield by-election).

[SusanDoris]

How very odd Susan.

Just a few posts ago you indicated that you voted for Jeremy Hunt rather than Boris in the leadership election just a couple of years ago. So presumably you prefer him as leader to Boris. Hunt is, of course, still around and seems to me to be a perfectly credible candidate. Last time out he attained sufficient support from MPs to be on the ballot paper so no reason why he shouldn't again. Add to that that he has been detached from the current mess of Government as he's not been a minister, he's had a 'good' pandemic as chair of the health select committee and doesn't seem to have the obvious sleaze baggage of many of the other main contenders (non-dom, tax evasion etc).

So why aren't you championing your chap Hunt (he was your preferred person previously) - you certainly claimed you preferred him to Boris.

Or maybe we are just engaging in further by-the-book Save Big Dog tory central office tactics. Excuse number 25 - 'well we can't get rid of Boris unless we have an obvious replacement'.

I will remind you that I said on several occasions that I voted for Jeremy Hunt because he was NOT  Boris Johnson.

[SusanDoris]

Laughable.

We have a binary choice - either Boris stays as PM or he goes.

A large majority of the public want him to go, there have been vociferous calls for him to go in parliament and not just on the opposition benches but from members of his own party.

If you think he should stay in that binary choice then you are, without a shadow of doubt, supporting him.

And yet again you think I should accept your version of my opinions amd not my own? Please explain why.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet again you think I should accept your version of my opinions amd not my own? Please explain why.

No the problem is that you are arguing in two directions - it is a kind of cognitive dissonance.

In the world of a binary choice - Boris either goes or he stays - you are arguing that you can both support Boris staying and yet not support Boris as PM. That is nonsense. If you support him staying then you are supporting him.

[ProfessorDavey]

I will remind you that I said on several occasions that I voted for Jeremy Hunt because he was NOT  Boris Johnson.

Then why on earth aren't you grabbing the opportunity to get rid of the person you claim you didn't want (Boris) in favour of the person you did (Hunt). Presumably if you felt him worthy of your vote for not being Boris then you would presumably consider him to be an improvement on Boris. Yet you keep implying that Boris shouldn't go as you cannot think of anyone better (Save Big Dog tactic number 25).

You really do need to get your arguments straight, both on this one and your Schrodingers argument of both supporting Boris staying as PM (against overwhelming calls for him to go) and yet not supporting Boris as PM.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

[SteveH]

I just wish all this Tory scandal was happening a bit closer to a general election The public will have largely forgotten about it by thetime it arrives, and may vote them back in. Trouble is, the left is too divided: Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, etc. On the right, there's only really the Tories, whose vote is thus undivided.

[SusanDoris]

No the problem is that you are arguing in two directions - it is a kind of cognitive dissonance.

In the world of a binary choice - Boris either goes or he stays - you are arguing that you can both support Boris staying and yet not support Boris as PM. That is nonsense. If you support him staying then you are supporting him.

It may be a binary choice to you, but as far as I'm concerned, there are many different ways to consider the matter.  Call it nonsense too, if you like! I'll stick to my own opinions, thank you!

[SusanDoris]

Then why on earth aren't you grabbing the opportunity to get rid of the person you claim you didn't want (Boris) in favour of the person you did (Hunt). Presumably if you felt him worthy of your vote for not being Boris then you would presumably consider him to be an improvement on Boris. Yet you keep implying that Boris shouldn't go as you cannot think of anyone better (Save Big Dog tactic number 25).

You really do need to get your arguments straight, both on this one and your Schrodingers argument of both supporting Boris staying as PM (against overwhelming calls for him to go) and yet not supporting Boris as PM.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

At the monent, I am not being asked to vote, candidates are not coming forward to be selected, there are no general elections available, but when they are, then I will listen to arguments and make decisions.
In the meantime, Boris is in position as PM.  That is the factual case and there is nothing I can do about it, especially at the moment.

[ProfessorDavey]

It may be a binary choice to you, but as far as I'm concerned, there are many different ways to consider the matter.  Call it nonsense too, if you like! I'll stick to my own opinions, thank you!

I'm sorry Susan - where we are at the moment provides a simple binary choice. Either Boris stays as PM or Boris goes as PM.

[ProfessorDavey]

In the meantime, Boris is in position as PM.  That is the factual case and there is nothing I can do about it, especially at the moment.

Actually you could do something - you could call on him to go. But you won't do that as you support him staying as PM.

But as I mentioned many times previously this isn't about what actually happens but about what you want to happen - and on that you've been clear that you support Boris staying as PM.

[SusanDoris]

I'm sorry Susan - where we are at the moment provides a simple binary choice. Either Boris stays as PM or Boris goes as PM.

No, we do not have a 'choice'. If you think we have, please tell me where it or a ballot paper is.   You can think we and everyone else have a choice, but it is all on the range of wishful thinking, not a practical, actual, physical choice.

[SusanDoris]

Actually you could do something - you could call on him to go.

So, what do I do? Pick up the phone and demand to speak to Boris? Write him a personal e-mail and expect him to read it? That is farcical.

But you won't do that as you support him staying as PM.

No, I won't do that because it is a waste of my time, I do not think he should go at the momentbut you cannot infer from that I support him. Well, you obviously do infer that, but again that is your problem, not mine!

But as I mentioned many times previously this isn't about what actually happens but about what you want to happen - and on that you've been clear that you support Boris staying as PM.

Oh really? Even when I have said over and over again that I do not?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

As it will only be a Tory taking over then I think their response would be similar, although it should be pointed out that the links the Conservatives have with Russian oligarchs and the donations received don't totally convince me that their response has been all it should have been.

As I previously pointed out on another thread at least one Labour leader had the measure of the Russian regime:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-jeremy-corbyn-right-putin-oligarchs

(Note for those likely to rant about Left wing journalists, it is a right wing journalist who wrote this)

If Starmer was the PM I have no doubt that he would have reacted in a similar way to the current government possibly even more robustly as Labour is not enmeshed in Russian money in the way that the Tories are.

What a shame we are so blinded by the propaganda pumped out by Non doms in this country.

Yes very true about Corbyn. I agree about the propaganda. After you said that I went and looked into it a bit more deeply. Seems you are right about propaganda from politicians and media on both sides.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/

[jeremyp]

Changing the leader during a war is ok -

It happened twice in World War 2 and once in World War 1.

Of course we (the UK) are not in a war at the moment.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So, what do I do? Pick up the phone and demand to speak to Boris? Write him a personal e-mail and expect him to read it? That is farcical. No, I won't do that because it is a waste of my time, I do not think he should go at the momentbut you cannot infer from that I support him. Well, you obviously do infer that, but again that is your problem, not mine! Oh really? Even when I have said over and over again that I do not?

From what has been written above and previously I think Susan supports Boris Johnson staying as PM in the current circumstances as she cannot seen a suitable alternative candidate, but she does not support Boris Johnson. That makes sense to me - so not sure what is hard to understand.

If there was someone she thought was a better candidate for PM in the current circumstances she would consider it. She does not seem to have looked into other candidates and formed an opinion that there is a suitable alternative, therefore is not prepared to state she wants Boris Johnson to go until she has looked into it.

I don't subscribe to the black and white thinking of either you are with Boris Johnson or against him. Situations are usually a lot more nuanced and while this adversarial style of politics can be fun, I don't think it achieves anything meaningful or paints us in a good light. We become just like the politicians we despise IMO.

I think the adversarial arguments about religion are equally fun but make us look stupid. Religion is also a nuanced issue.

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

I like your post! Thank you for writing it.

[Nearly Sane]

Daily Mail and the cause of inflation

[jeremyp]

Daily Mail and the cause of inflation

Can you explain that? The Daily Mail is outraged that many Bank of England employees don't feel the need to go to the office most days (why should they?) but I doubt if it has a direct bearing on the uselessness of our esteaming prime minister.

[Nearly Sane]

Can you explain that? The Daily Mail is outraged that many Bank of England employees don't feel the need to go to the office most days (why should they?) but I doubt if it has a direct bearing on the uselessness of our esteaming prime minister.

It's just another plank of his ideas. I didn't think it needed a thread of its own and thought it would fit here.

[Nearly Sane]

The PM pissing on the graves of the dead.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61557064