Boris Johnson Inept

[dandarez]

JawKnee?
31 posts to date?

Look, I don't want to be rude but, really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the username of a piss-poor rapper and the question I want to ask is:

'WHO ARE YOU?'

I'd never heard of you.

Nobody on Pistonheads had ever heard of you.

I think I can speak on behalf of the majority of Pistonheads in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better.



apologies to NF

[Derek Smith]

turbobloke said:

Seriouly though, wtf do personalities have to do with it?

Are some people (not aimed at you personally) so out of it that they're clueless and look for heroes to follow, even though such people are fallible and their view may well be wrong-minded...madness.

If Gove likes apple pie does that mean his "hate fan club" dislike it on principle?

I am trying to base my decision on facts but every bit of info is disputed by the spinners. I fight against personalities but it is, as I said, difficult.

Your example of wondering about Gove's preferences for apple pie misses the point I feel. If Gove was likely to get a high cabinet position in the Johnson regime and praised a particular make of apple pie, then I'd think the only reason for him endorsing the product was down to what he might get from it.

The same goes for Johnson. He took some time to make his mind up but after doing so then became the most convinced of outers, hardly convincing. As for Murdoch, his decision will be completely apolitical. It seems all he wants is what helps him dominate the news and TV outlets, so can be dismissed.

I distrust Johnson. He's only interested in one thing, or perhaps two, but the main one is the top job.

Others have quoted Cameron for the stayers. But he gets no political advantage for a stay vote. He's leaving anyway. That doesn't mean one can trust him, but the 'ignore at all costs' imperative is not so intense with him.

Johnson and Gove hog the limelight. Is this the best the exit campaign can do? We're getting much from the likes of leaders of industry and those high up in the economic sector putting their point of view. These are not challenged directly very often.

Take today's scandal: industries telling workers the consequences to their companies of an exit. To listen to Mudoch's Sky News, the main comments from the exit team is not that the firms are wrong in suggesting that some worker's might lose their job, but that it is unfair.

The problem is whether this is as a result of inept leadership in the go camp - highly possible - or just a lack of positive argument.

To paraphrase you: Seriously, though, what the hell has unfairness got to do with it? They should tell me why they think these industry leaders are wrong, if indeed they do.

For those of us wanting information, this has been a very trying campaign.

I need reasons to jump into the unknown. Why aren't the exit crowd giving me chapter and verse? Attacking others, and crying out unfair, is not going to convince me.

There are reason for me personally to stay. That said, they are not overwhelming, but they exist. Why can't the exit lot come up with reason enough to convince me otherwise? It is possible, I think, that the two blokes in charge are inept and overwhelmed by self interest. But that still leaves me unconvinced.

[TEKNOPUG]

Derek Smith said:

I am trying to base my decision on facts but every bit of info is disputed by the spinners. I fight against personalities but it is, as I said, difficult.

Your example of wondering about Gove's preferences for apple pie misses the point I feel. If Gove was likely to get a high cabinet position in the Johnson regime and praised a particular make of apple pie, then I'd think the only reason for him endorsing the product was down to what he might get from it.

The same goes for Johnson. He took some time to make his mind up but after doing so then became the most convinced of outers, hardly convincing. As for Murdoch, his decision will be completely apolitical. It seems all he wants is what helps him dominate the news and TV outlets, so can be dismissed.

I distrust Johnson. He's only interested in one thing, or perhaps two, but the main one is the top job.

Others have quoted Cameron for the stayers. But he gets no political advantage for a stay vote. He's leaving anyway. That doesn't mean one can trust him, but the 'ignore at all costs' imperative is not so intense with him.

Johnson and Gove hog the limelight. Is this the best the exit campaign can do? We're getting much from the likes of leaders of industry and those high up in the economic sector putting their point of view. These are not challenged directly very often.

Take today's scandal: industries telling workers the consequences to their companies of an exit. To listen to Mudoch's Sky News, the main comments from the exit team is not that the firms are wrong in suggesting that some worker's might lose their job, but that it is unfair.

The problem is whether this is as a result of inept leadership in the go camp - highly possible - or just a lack of positive argument.

To paraphrase you: Seriously, though, what the hell has unfairness got to do with it? They should tell me why they think these industry leaders are wrong, if indeed they do.

For those of us wanting information, this has been a very trying campaign.

I need reasons to jump into the unknown. Why aren't the exit crowd giving me chapter and verse? Attacking others, and crying out unfair, is not going to convince me.

There are reason for me personally to stay. That said, they are not overwhelming, but they exist. Why can't the exit lot come up with reason enough to convince me otherwise? It is possible, I think, that the two blokes in charge are inept and overwhelmed by self interest. But that still leaves me unconvinced.

You're already in the unknown. Unless you know exactly what the EU intend on doing in the next 5/10/20 years? If you do know, would you mind sharing it with the 500m rest of the population?

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

turbobloke said:

Seriouly though, wtf do personalities have to do with it?

Are some people (not aimed at you personally) so out of it that they're clueless and look for heroes to follow, even though such people are fallible and their view may well be wrong-minded...madness.

If Gove likes apple pie does that mean his "hate fan club" dislike it on principle?

I am trying to base my decision on facts but every bit of info is disputed by the spinners. I fight against personalities but it is, as I said, difficult......

Fair enough but personalities? Does not compute!

Derek Smith said:

Your example of wondering about Gove's preferences for apple pie misses the point I feel. If Gove was likely to get a high cabinet position in the Johnson regime and praised a particular make of apple pie.....

Blimey. Endorse apple pie for personal gain? Pie factory sends pies to BoGo shock scoop.

My example was tongue in cheek to a degree but you seem to be taking the baton and running to the pie factory with it!

[chow pan toon]

FiF said:

That's a good idea. Though to add a thread entitled "Is [insert poster name] a shill? Discuss" with a link to their posting record might not be too good a use of bandwidth.

Of course they could deny it, instead of protesting too much.

Not stop other people forming their own judgement and disregarding input accordingly or not, which is what I do generally.

There would be a lot of threads. Jawknee is hardly the only monomaniac in this place

[unrepentant]

Derek Smith said:

There is more to come about Johnson's time in office, at least if Private Eye is correct.

I think you have highlighted the problem with the referendum. It has become a personality vote. I've been trying to work out which would be best for me and mine but if I lean towards leave, the fact that Johnson, Gove and Murdoch also favour leaving has me concerned. I know it is wrong, but I struggle to put it out of my mind. I can't help thinking that if I end up on the cusp, Johnson, Gove et al will push me to vote stay.

I've always been pretty much in the anti EU camp but from the safety of 3500 miles away I'm going to use my absentee ballot to vote to stay in. If Brexit happens Cameron will be forced to resign and the prospect of Johnson as PM fills me with almost as much dread as a Trump presidency does. For that reason alone I'll oppose Brexit.

[Derek Smith]

turbobloke said:

Blimey. Endorse apple pie for personal gain? Pie factory sends pies to BoGo shock scoop.

My example was tongue in cheek to a degree but you seem to be taking the baton and running to the pie factory with it!

Well, there you go. The point I made was clear enough. Why not argue against that rather than try and make me appear silly? Attack the point I made. There is a chance it might convince.

[DMN]

Derek Smith said:

I am trying to base my decision on facts but every bit of info is disputed by the spinners. I fight against personalities but it is, as I said, difficult.

Your example of wondering about Gove's preferences for apple pie misses the point I feel. If Gove was likely to get a high cabinet position in the Johnson regime and praised a particular make of apple pie, then I'd think the only reason for him endorsing the product was down to what he might get from it.

The same goes for Johnson. He took some time to make his mind up but after doing so then became the most convinced of outers, hardly convincing. As for Murdoch, his decision will be completely apolitical. It seems all he wants is what helps him dominate the news and TV outlets, so can be dismissed.

I distrust Johnson. He's only interested in one thing, or perhaps two, but the main one is the top job.

Others have quoted Cameron for the stayers. But he gets no political advantage for a stay vote. He's leaving anyway. That doesn't mean one can trust him, but the 'ignore at all costs' imperative is not so intense with him.

Johnson and Gove hog the limelight. Is this the best the exit campaign can do? We're getting much from the likes of leaders of industry and those high up in the economic sector putting their point of view. These are not challenged directly very often.

Take today's scandal: industries telling workers the consequences to their companies of an exit. To listen to Mudoch's Sky News, the main comments from the exit team is not that the firms are wrong in suggesting that some worker's might lose their job, but that it is unfair.

The problem is whether this is as a result of inept leadership in the go camp - highly possible - or just a lack of positive argument.

To paraphrase you: Seriously, though, what the hell has unfairness got to do with it? They should tell me why they think these industry leaders are wrong, if indeed they do.

For those of us wanting information, this has been a very trying campaign.

I need reasons to jump into the unknown. Why aren't the exit crowd giving me chapter and verse? Attacking others, and crying out unfair, is not going to convince me.

There are reason for me personally to stay. That said, they are not overwhelming, but they exist. Why can't the exit lot come up with reason enough to convince me otherwise? It is possible, I think, that the two blokes in charge are inept and overwhelmed by self interest. But that still leaves me unconvinced.

Excellently put. The burden of proof lies with the brexit campaign. They should be selling it to us.

[anonymous-user]

unrepentant said:

Derek Smith said:

There is more to come about Johnson's time in office, at least if Private Eye is correct.

I think you have highlighted the problem with the referendum. It has become a personality vote. I've been trying to work out which would be best for me and mine but if I lean towards leave, the fact that Johnson, Gove and Murdoch also favour leaving has me concerned. I know it is wrong, but I struggle to put it out of my mind. I can't help thinking that if I end up on the cusp, Johnson, Gove et al will push me to vote stay.

I've always been pretty much in the anti EU camp but from the safety of 3500 miles away I'm going to use my absentee ballot to vote to stay in. If Brexit happens Cameron will be forced to resign and the prospect of Johnson as PM fills me with almost as much dread as a Trump presidency does. For that reason alone I'll oppose Brexit.

I'm really surprised you two kind of respected (by me anyway) posters would say this stuff. Why don't both of you simply vote for whether you want Britain to exit or not? Everything else is irrelevant.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. We will likely never get the chance to leave the EU again. Who supports each side or who might be the next PM completely pales into significance.

[anonymous-user]

DMN said:

Excellently put. The burden of proof lies with the brexit campaign. They should be selling it to us.

Why? Nobody seems to be able to sell the EU to us. All we hear is that sure it's not perfect but it might be worse if we leave. It's like your wife saying sure our marriage is crap but you might not find anyone better.

If we weren't in it, I doubt we'd be interested in joining it at the moment. Different if you're from a country that doesn't contribute much of course.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

I am trying to base my decision on facts...

Good luck with that. After what I consider a huge amount of reading and discussion I've come to the conclusion that a vote in either direction is a leap in the dark. We don't know where the EU is going or how fast and we don't know what our relationship with them would be if we leave... I'm leaning toward out; I never once met a Canadian that wanted to be American either.

[Pan Pan Pan]

DMN said:

Derek Smith said:

I am trying to base my decision on facts but every bit of info is disputed by the spinners. I fight against personalities but it is, as I said, difficult.

Your example of wondering about Gove's preferences for apple pie misses the point I feel. If Gove was likely to get a high cabinet position in the Johnson regime and praised a particular make of apple pie, then I'd think the only reason for him endorsing the product was down to what he might get from it.

The same goes for Johnson. He took some time to make his mind up but after doing so then became the most convinced of outers, hardly convincing. As for Murdoch, his decision will be completely apolitical. It seems all he wants is what helps him dominate the news and TV outlets, so can be dismissed.

I distrust Johnson. He's only interested in one thing, or perhaps two, but the main one is the top job.

Others have quoted Cameron for the stayers. But he gets no political advantage for a stay vote. He's leaving anyway. That doesn't mean one can trust him, but the 'ignore at all costs' imperative is not so intense with him.

Johnson and Gove hog the limelight. Is this the best the exit campaign can do? We're getting much from the likes of leaders of industry and those high up in the economic sector putting their point of view. These are not challenged directly very often.

Take today's scandal: industries telling workers the consequences to their companies of an exit. To listen to Mudoch's Sky News, the main comments from the exit team is not that the firms are wrong in suggesting that some worker's might lose their job, but that it is unfair.

The problem is whether this is as a result of inept leadership in the go camp - highly possible - or just a lack of positive argument.

To paraphrase you: Seriously, though, what the hell has unfairness got to do with it? They should tell me why they think these industry leaders are wrong, if indeed they do.

For those of us wanting information, this has been a very trying campaign.

I need reasons to jump into the unknown. Why aren't the exit crowd giving me chapter and verse? Attacking others, and crying out unfair, is not going to convince me.

There are reason for me personally to stay. That said, they are not overwhelming, but they exist. Why can't the exit lot come up with reason enough to convince me otherwise? It is possible, I think, that the two blokes in charge are inept and overwhelmed by self interest. But that still leaves me unconvinced.

Excellently put. The burden of proof lies with the brexit campaign. They should be selling it to us.

I can think of many reasons to leave, but the remain group have not put up a single good reason to remain, Not one. You would think after 40 YEARS of membership, the benefits of the UK being in the EU would be self evident, and we would not even need or be having a referendum, clearly this is not the case, Surely after 40 YEARS they can come up with something better than reduced mobile phone roaming charges?

[JawKnee]

dandarez said:

JawKnee?
I think I can speak on behalf of the majority of Pistonheads in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better.

I have a car, I drive a car. It goes forwards and sometimes it even goes backwards. Isn't that enough to be welcomed on a car forum?

I'm obviously too new here and having opposing views to the majority is clearly a big 'no no' which deserves a banning. I'm sorry. Can you make this unwritten rule written so others after me don't make the same mistake?

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Derek Smith said:

I am trying to base my decision on facts...

Good luck with that. After what I consider a huge amount of reading and discussion I've come to the conclusion that a vote in either direction is a leap in the dark. We don't know where the EU is going or how fast and we don't know what our relationship with them would be if we leave... I'm leaning toward out; I never once met a Canadian that wanted to be American either.

Nobody knows what will happen if we leave or stay. both involve changes. To me, if we stay, what we do know is that the EU powers are increasing and we have less control over our own country and increasing control by unelected EU leaders. Why on earth would we want to be increasingly controlled by unelected people from another country?

[anonymous-user]

JawKnee said:

dandarez said:

JawKnee?
I think I can speak on behalf of the majority of Pistonheads in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better.

I have a car, I drive a car. It goes forwards and sometimes it even goes backwards. Isn't that enough to be welcomed on a car forum?

I'm obviously too new here and having opposing views to the majority is clearly a big 'no no' which deserves a banning. I'm sorry. Can you make this unwritten rule written so others after me don't make the same mistake?

It's the fact that you appear to have joined a car forum just to push your agenda on Europe and Johnson. That makes people suspicious of you and your intentions. Why would you join a car forum just to post about Europe? That's a bit odd isn't it?

[WinstonWolf]

el stovey said:

JawKnee said:

dandarez said:

JawKnee?
I think I can speak on behalf of the majority of Pistonheads in saying that we don't know you, we don't want you, and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better.

I have a car, I drive a car. It goes forwards and sometimes it even goes backwards. Isn't that enough to be welcomed on a car forum?

I'm obviously too new here and having opposing views to the majority is clearly a big 'no no' which deserves a banning. I'm sorry. Can you make this unwritten rule written so others after me don't make the same mistake?

It's the fact that you appear to have joined a car forum just to push your agenda on Europe and Johnson. That makes people suspicious of you and your intentions. Why would you join a car forum just to post about Europe? That's a bit odd isn't it?

Very odd. So what car is it?

[TTwiggy]

el stovey said:

It's the fact that you appear to have joined a car forum just to push your agenda on Europe and Johnson. That makes people suspicious of you and your intentions. Why would you join a car forum just to post about Europe? That's a bit odd isn't it?

Unlike those who appear to have joined to push their agendas on Islam and immigration? There are plenty of 'politised' posters on here who rarely or never venture into the car sections.

[unrepentant]

el stovey said:

unrepentant said:

Derek Smith said:

There is more to come about Johnson's time in office, at least if Private Eye is correct.

I think you have highlighted the problem with the referendum. It has become a personality vote. I've been trying to work out which would be best for me and mine but if I lean towards leave, the fact that Johnson, Gove and Murdoch also favour leaving has me concerned. I know it is wrong, but I struggle to put it out of my mind. I can't help thinking that if I end up on the cusp, Johnson, Gove et al will push me to vote stay.

I've always been pretty much in the anti EU camp but from the safety of 3500 miles away I'm going to use my absentee ballot to vote to stay in. If Brexit happens Cameron will be forced to resign and the prospect of Johnson as PM fills me with almost as much dread as a Trump presidency does. For that reason alone I'll oppose Brexit.

I'm really surprised you two kind of respected (by me anyway) posters would say this stuff. Why don't both of you simply vote for whether you want Britain to exit or not? Everything else is irrelevant.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. We will likely never get the chance to leave the EU again. Who supports each side or who might be the next PM completely pales into significance.

I'm being slightly flippant (the prospect of Trump is worse than anything else I can imagine). From a selfish perspective even though I no longer live in the UK I have investments there and the value of sterling is something that concerns me greatly. I think Brexit would have a negative effect on both the markets and on sterling.

If we vote to stay in but the mood of the country continues to move towards exit there will be pressure for another referendum. If we leave I can't see us ever being welcomed back in. I see Brexit being far more permanent than a vote to remain.

I wonder what Thatcher would do? I think she would have beaten the EU up and got us a much better deal but remained in. And that's what I think our (your) leaders should be doing.

[sugerbear]

It's almost like the Tory party have orchestrated this whole thing.

1. Appoint Boris to lead the brexit campaign
2. Turn Boris into a softer version of Donald Trump
3. Throw in Mr Gove
4. CMD gets the right result and claims victory, leads the country for another eight(ish) years

[Derek Smith]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I can think of many reasons to leave, but the remain group have not put up a single good reason to remain, Not one. You would think after 40 YEARS of membership, the benefits of the UK being in the EU would be self evident, and we would not even need or be having a referendum, clearly this is not the case, Surely after 40 YEARS they can come up with something better than reduced mobile phone roaming charges?

I think that is wrong.

Only today we've had business managers saying that an exit will cost jobs. Whilst it is only an opinion, it seems that out of everyone, they should know. Then there's the BoE.

There are a number of those in the know who suggest an exit will cost. This is difficult to argue against but I'm not sure that Johnson has bothered.

The argument about peace in the EU since its establishment is easy enough to see is correct. We have seen European wars in some of those countries outside the EU in that time. The point is: why are we so blessed? There might well be reasons.

But what does Johnson do? Makes a joke of it. Spins it in fact. If it is so easy to prove it is wrong, why doesn't he try? That said, my opinion is that the bloke is inept. He's intelligent but not sensible.

For someone like me, who has an interest in history, will know full well the history of conflict that has been endemic in Europe since . . . since history began. But not today.

As I say there might be reasons for this outside of the EU, but if the exit campaigners can't find it and have to indulge in obfuscation then I remain convinced of my own conclusion that the EU is instrumental in keeping peace.

It won't last of course, but it is likely, I think, to last longer with an EU and us in it.