Boris: Why the all the love?
Discussion
ali_kat said:
on't get me wrong; I respect the guy, but
After VE day, yes. But only because he was a racist that recognised a bigger racist when he saw one.
Until then, he'd been seen as incompetent politician who had the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time in the 1930's. He'd unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians; sent thousands of soldiers to their death at Gallipoli in 1915; and put the Bengal famine down to "their own fault for breeding like rabbits".
The myth perpetuated after the war that he was loved by those in the east end of London is far from the truth. From what I can remember he was largely felt to be a warmonger. There could be no greater criticism from a country still mourning the deaths and serious injuries as a result of WW1. My grandmother wouldn't allow his name to be mentioned in the house. The celebration of him being the victor in the war was not common thought at the end of the war and he was voted out (although not voted in as PM of the war coalition of course).After VE day, yes. But only because he was a racist that recognised a bigger racist when he saw one.
Until then, he'd been seen as incompetent politician who had the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time in the 1930's. He'd unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians; sent thousands of soldiers to their death at Gallipoli in 1915; and put the Bengal famine down to "their own fault for breeding like rabbits".
I remember arguments over the BBC's excessive, in the eyes of some of my family, praise for his wartime performance. The consensus was that Bevin's role was undermined post war.
He's a bit like William Wallace in some ways (despite being the victor.) Much of what he is praised for is difficult to support.
I'm so sowwy...-- OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM PISTONHEADS --
Please be aware that we are monitoring this thread closely and will not tolerate any comments that break our rules of posting. To remind you of the rules:
Rule 2) Do not be argumentative for the sake of it or be deliberately contrary. Do not post links or images which contain pornographic, violent, racist or sexist material or that could be seen as offensive or unlawful in any way.
Every member agreed to them when they joined PH.
As such, any posts that cause offence to any members will be deleted and the member dealt with accordingly.
Derek Smith said:
The myth perpetuated after the war that he was loved by those in the east end of London is far from the truth. From what I can remember he was largely felt to be a warmonger. There could be no greater criticism from a country still mourning the deaths and serious injuries as a result of WW1. My grandmother wouldn't allow his name to be mentioned in the house. The celebration of him being the victor in the war was not common thought at the end of the war and he was voted out (although not voted in as PM of the war coalition of course).
I remember arguments over the BBC's excessive, in the eyes of some of my family, praise for his wartime performance. The consensus was that Bevin's role was undermined post war.
He's a bit like William Wallace in some ways (despite being the victor.) Much of what he is praised for is difficult to support.
In 1945, many voters - particularly the military - were thoroughly fed-up with the British political establishment that had led the UK into WW1 and then WW2 twenty short years later, hence the landslide election of Labour.I remember arguments over the BBC's excessive, in the eyes of some of my family, praise for his wartime performance. The consensus was that Bevin's role was undermined post war.
He's a bit like William Wallace in some ways (despite being the victor.) Much of what he is praised for is difficult to support.
Would the British have continued fighting Hitler in 1940 if there was no Churchill? Almost certainly.
Derek Smith said:
The myth perpetuated after the war that he was loved by those in the east end of London is far from the truth. From what I can remember he was largely felt to be a warmonger. There could be no greater criticism from a country still mourning the deaths and serious injuries as a result of WW1. My grandmother wouldn't allow his name to be mentioned in the house. The celebration of him being the victor in the war was not common thought at the end of the war and he was voted out (although not voted in as PM of the war coalition of course).
I remember arguments over the BBC's excessive, in the eyes of some of my family, praise for his wartime performance. The consensus was that Bevin's role was undermined post war.
He's a bit like William Wallace in some ways (despite being the victor.) Much of what he is praised for is difficult to support.
Yep, my Gran was the same!I remember arguments over the BBC's excessive, in the eyes of some of my family, praise for his wartime performance. The consensus was that Bevin's role was undermined post war.
He's a bit like William Wallace in some ways (despite being the victor.) Much of what he is praised for is difficult to support.
He was the right man for the job, but he wasn't liked
V8 Fettler said:
In 1945, many voters - particularly the military - were thoroughly fed-up with the British political establishment that had led the UK into WW1 and then WW2 twenty short years later, hence the landslide election of Labour.
Would the British have continued fighting Hitler in 1940 if there was no Churchill? Almost certainly.
From what I could gather, the disgust with the establishment was down to the inept management of the economy immediately post war as well as, as you suggest, the inability of those in charge to come to a policy that would have stabilised Europe.Would the British have continued fighting Hitler in 1940 if there was no Churchill? Almost certainly.
The interwar years turned my dad's brothers, some sisters, but not many, and a number of brothers-in-law towards political interest and, for most, socialism and for a few, communism.
There was especial resentment against Churchill's promise to stop rationing, which gained him as PM victory at last in elections, despite the country being broke.
When you look back at the MPs of the 40s and 50s, Johnson seems a bit ephemeral.
ali_kat said:
Blaster72 said:
Almost 9 million people voted for Churchill and his part a couple of months after VE day, to say he wasn't liked at all is absurd. The populace at the time just believed Atlee and his party were more capable of rebuilding and moving on than the conservatives.
Don't get me wrong; I respect the guy, butAfter VE day, yes. But only because he was a racist that recognised a bigger racist when he saw one.
Until then, he'd been seen as incompetent politician who had the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time in the 1930's. He'd unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians; sent thousands of soldiers to their death at Gallipoli in 1915; and put the Bengal famine down to "their own fault for breeding like rabbits".
Churchill's response - at the age of 41 - was to serve in the trenches on the Western front as a lowly battalion commander. This would be like Tony Blair picking up a rifle and going to fight in the front line in Iraq. Can anyone imagine that happening?
ali_kat said:
on't get me wrong; I respect the guy, but
After VE day, yes. But only because he was a racist that recognised a bigger racist when he saw one.
Until then, he'd been seen as incompetent politician who had the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time in the 1930's. He'd unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians; sent thousands of soldiers to their death at Gallipoli in 1915; and put the Bengal famine down to "their own fault for breeding like rabbits".
Well I don't know what comments he made about the Bengal famine, but pinning the blame for it on Churchill is a gross oversimplification.After VE day, yes. But only because he was a racist that recognised a bigger racist when he saw one.
Until then, he'd been seen as incompetent politician who had the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time in the 1930's. He'd unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians; sent thousands of soldiers to their death at Gallipoli in 1915; and put the Bengal famine down to "their own fault for breeding like rabbits".
There were many aspects from the Japanese occupation of Burma (an important rice exporter) to the poor statistics available to the Indian authorities to the actions of elected provincial authorities (who curtailed intra regional food trade)
Even Gallipoli, which he was responsible for, was an example of an intelligent man seeing an essential course of action but not being able to achieve it, rather than senseless slaughter.
As for his popularity he was the right man at the right time, having consistently opposed appeasement. Before the war he was not particularly popular and after it he was not seen, at that time, as the man to lead the country in peace.
Their are more similarities than many allow between Churchill and Johnson. Both are renowned for their writing and wit. Both cultivate/cultivated an unconventional political image. A key difference thus far is that Churchill was a man of principle who stood by those principles.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Would those be the bendy buses that caught fire a lot, and squashed cyclists a lot? The ones that had been successfully used in other cities in Europe that had networks of the same wide, straight, multi-lane boulevards which make up so much of London's road network?I think that a lot of Boris fans will fall out of love with him if he purports to support CMD over the EU referendum.
If he lacks the balls to support Brexit, the only viable option to preserve his credibility will be to say, 'yes I know the EU negotiations have been rubbish, and we have won no concessions, but on balance I think we are better off in.'
If he lacks the balls to support Brexit, the only viable option to preserve his credibility will be to say, 'yes I know the EU negotiations have been rubbish, and we have won no concessions, but on balance I think we are better off in.'
Boris's father (and ex-MEP himself) is a rabid Remainiac.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/02/s...
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/02/s...
Ayahuasca said:
I think that a lot of Boris fans will fall out of love with him if he purports to support CMD over the EU referendum.
If he lacks the balls to support Brexit, the only viable option to preserve his credibility will be to say, 'yes I know the EU negotiations have been rubbish, and we have won no concessions, but on balance I think we are better off in.'
He will 'support' the side which he thinks will win. I doubt he has an opinion either way so balls aren't in it. If he lacks the balls to support Brexit, the only viable option to preserve his credibility will be to say, 'yes I know the EU negotiations have been rubbish, and we have won no concessions, but on balance I think we are better off in.'
jogger1976 said:
It can't just be me that is bemused that seemingly intelligent, rational adults are seduced by the cartoon act that this bloke puts out on a daily basis.
Having watched him during some of his tougher interviews and the grillings he's got during London Assembly meetings I grudgingly admire the guy as he completely evades answering any questions and just goes off on a tangent
It's pretty clear (to me at least) that Boris is every bit the evasive, cynical, manipulative careerist that CMD and many other top politicians are. Yet he seems to be able to get away with most of it just by ruffling his hair and being a walking cliche of what a bumbling posh bloke is supposed to be like.
How does he get away with it?
A few reasons. Top ones are he has two shots available to him in his locker that the vast majority of MPs genuinely do not have; a self referential way of accepting and joining in on the joke on himself, and he is also genuinely amusing. Most MPs are so scared/stupid to have a personality.Having watched him during some of his tougher interviews and the grillings he's got during London Assembly meetings I grudgingly admire the guy as he completely evades answering any questions and just goes off on a tangent
It's pretty clear (to me at least) that Boris is every bit the evasive, cynical, manipulative careerist that CMD and many other top politicians are. Yet he seems to be able to get away with most of it just by ruffling his hair and being a walking cliche of what a bumbling posh bloke is supposed to be like.
How does he get away with it?
He's a bit like Trump in that regard.
Halb said:
jogger1976 said:
It can't just be me that is bemused that seemingly intelligent, rational adults are seduced by the cartoon act that this bloke puts out on a daily basis.
Having watched him during some of his tougher interviews and the grillings he's got during London Assembly meetings I grudgingly admire the guy as he completely evades answering any questions and just goes off on a tangent
It's pretty clear (to me at least) that Boris is every bit the evasive, cynical, manipulative careerist that CMD and many other top politicians are. Yet he seems to be able to get away with most of it just by ruffling his hair and being a walking cliche of what a bumbling posh bloke is supposed to be like.
How does he get away with it?
A few reasons. Top ones are he has two shots available to him in his locker that the vast majority of MPs genuinely do not have; a self referential way of accepting and joining in on the joke on himself, and he is also genuinely amusing. Most MPs are so scared/stupid to have a personality.Having watched him during some of his tougher interviews and the grillings he's got during London Assembly meetings I grudgingly admire the guy as he completely evades answering any questions and just goes off on a tangent
It's pretty clear (to me at least) that Boris is every bit the evasive, cynical, manipulative careerist that CMD and many other top politicians are. Yet he seems to be able to get away with most of it just by ruffling his hair and being a walking cliche of what a bumbling posh bloke is supposed to be like.
How does he get away with it?
He's a bit like Trump in that regard.
jogger1976 said:
Halb said:
jogger1976 said:
It can't just be me that is bemused that seemingly intelligent, rational adults are seduced by the cartoon act that this bloke puts out on a daily basis.
Having watched him during some of his tougher interviews and the grillings he's got during London Assembly meetings I grudgingly admire the guy as he completely evades answering any questions and just goes off on a tangent
It's pretty clear (to me at least) that Boris is every bit the evasive, cynical, manipulative careerist that CMD and many other top politicians are. Yet he seems to be able to get away with most of it just by ruffling his hair and being a walking cliche of what a bumbling posh bloke is supposed to be like.
How does he get away with it?
A few reasons. Top ones are he has two shots available to him in his locker that the vast majority of MPs genuinely do not have; a self referential way of accepting and joining in on the joke on himself, and he is also genuinely amusing. Most MPs are so scared/stupid to have a personality.Having watched him during some of his tougher interviews and the grillings he's got during London Assembly meetings I grudgingly admire the guy as he completely evades answering any questions and just goes off on a tangent
It's pretty clear (to me at least) that Boris is every bit the evasive, cynical, manipulative careerist that CMD and many other top politicians are. Yet he seems to be able to get away with most of it just by ruffling his hair and being a walking cliche of what a bumbling posh bloke is supposed to be like.
How does he get away with it?
He's a bit like Trump in that regard.
Yes, I do find Trump amusing.
This is easy. You have two people who both do an equally rubbish job for you. One is a miserable excuse maker and the other doesn't bother even giving you an excuse but makes you laugh at his silly attempts to do anything. Comedy wins. I don't say it right and proper, just the way it is.
Mr_B said:
This is easy. You have two people who both do an equally rubbish job for you. One is a miserable excuse maker and the other doesn't bother even giving you an excuse but makes you laugh at his silly attempts to do anything. Comedy wins. I don't say it right and proper, just the way it is.
Pretty much it in a nutshell. Boris/Trump et al, they're 'people' people, they can get further than competent automatons.JagLover said:
ali_kat said:
on't get me wrong; I respect the guy, but
After VE day, yes. But only because he was a racist that recognised a bigger racist when he saw one.
Until then, he'd been seen as incompetent politician who had the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time in the 1930's. He'd unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians; sent thousands of soldiers to their death at Gallipoli in 1915; and put the Bengal famine down to "their own fault for breeding like rabbits".
Well I don't know what comments he made about the Bengal famine, but pinning the blame for it on Churchill is a gross oversimplification.After VE day, yes. But only because he was a racist that recognised a bigger racist when he saw one.
Until then, he'd been seen as incompetent politician who had the good fortune of being at the right place at the right time in the 1930's. He'd unleashed the notorious Black and Tan thugs on Ireland's Catholic civilians; sent thousands of soldiers to their death at Gallipoli in 1915; and put the Bengal famine down to "their own fault for breeding like rabbits".
There were many aspects from the Japanese occupation of Burma (an important rice exporter) to the poor statistics available to the Indian authorities to the actions of elected provincial authorities (who curtailed intra regional food trade)
Even Gallipoli, which he was responsible for, was an example of an intelligent man seeing an essential course of action but not being able to achieve it, rather than senseless slaughter.
As for his popularity he was the right man at the right time, having consistently opposed appeasement. Before the war he was not particularly popular and after it he was not seen, at that time, as the man to lead the country in peace.
Their are more similarities than many allow between Churchill and Johnson. Both are renowned for their writing and wit. Both cultivate/cultivated an unconventional political image. A key difference thus far is that Churchill was a man of principle who stood by those principles.
All I have said is that the people of the day did not like him & some of the reasons why
Yes, I've also said he was the right man at the right time, I'm not comparing him to Boris, I'm just saying that, like Churchill, history may see Boris as great
I like him now
FredClogs said:
For me this is Boris Johnston, tells you all you need to know about the man...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA
This tells you so much more...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWIUp19bBoA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDJWkS2A9T0
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff