More Johnson

[Derek Smith]

So the dolt does something that did not surprise anyone. The only remarkable thing is that it has taken him this long.

Regardless of what one thinks of Saudi Arabia, Johnson undermined the government by mouthing off.

Still, the blame lies with May for awarding one of the great offices of state to someone whose skills set doesn't include considering what he will do or say.

Then there was that scatterbrain Truss who was made Lord Chancellor! When first tested, over the attacks on the appeal court, she failed miserably. Again, May is to blame for putting someone totally unsuited into the very complex and difficult role.

One hopes that May did a better job with Davies and Fox, but somehow I don't think she did.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

When you consider the pool in which May she was fishing.... I give her more credit, her statements lately (if serious) are basically a condemnation of what went before in successive governments. Could be that she has finally got a job she can do, she has a talent for putting cats among pigeons. She certainly isn't fazed by pompous bombast from EU officials, to mention nothing of EU leaders.

One statement from yesterday (among others) lambasted the civil service:
"...there is a tendency in the system to try to interpret what they think you want, and to deliver that. Instead, it should be civil servants' duty to speak their mind. From the officials' point of view, what they owe to the Minister, and what the Minister expects, is the best possible advice. Don't try to tell me what you think I want to hear. I want your advice, I want the options. Then politicians can make the decisions". Quite refreshing I thought.

Edited by Thorodin on Thursday 8th December 21:15

I'm not sure she's actually done anything, apart from promoting people. Talk is cheap. I'd love to know the conditions that Nissan were awarded for staying here.

The choice of Truss, Johnson and Fox, now that's not what I'd call a win treble, was shocking. If, as you seem to suggest if I'm reading your post correctly, that's the best of those available then it paints a sorry picture of the tory party. But I don't think it is.

I've got little time for Gove but, after many failures, he seemed to be doing something positive in the role of Lord Chancellor. I accept he spoke more than did, but what he said was positive. I remember thinking that he'd found a square hole. Sack Gove, replace with Truss for the senior lawyering post. When one thinks of the predecessors in the post . . . words fail me. Hailsham, Straw, Clark, even Grayling, although he suffers in this list more than a little. But TRUSS!

What is also worrying is that we will need a foreign secretary who is respected and can be trusted. Subtlety is an essential, with more than a little deviousness. Cunning but with a global mind. I accept we haven't had too many of them of late, but Johnson is a buffoon.

Fox is part of a duo that is in charge of vital negotiations, ones which will set us on a course for some years to come. Let's not forget that Fox resigned as defence secretary for - let's be nice about it - a certain lack of judgement. Is that the CV of someone whose judgement might have major effects on the country as a whole?

If May is a shrewd and clever as some suggest, then this is some way of showing it.

[Derek Smith]

Willy Nilly said:

The government is being diplomatic, but they are all thinking what Boris said. People want politicians to tell the truth, then when they do they complain about it.

Isn't the point of the Foreign Sec to be diplomatic?

Most of us know what Saudi Arabia is doing. It is hardly a secret. I doubt the Saudis are unaware what Johnson and the government think of them. We had May go to SA a few days ago to negotiate something that will be vital to us post brexit, a trade deal. So Johnson's casual condemnation of them, almost at the same time, is hardly something that will encourage further deals.

Face isn't something unique to Japan.

Regardless of whether you think we should be selling arms to SA, casually causing diplomatic problems is not what he should be doing. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself.

Or, come to that, help us.

[Derek Smith]

Mark Benson said:

Derek Smith said:

Willy Nilly said:

The government is being diplomatic, but they are all thinking what Boris said. People want politicians to tell the truth, then when they do they complain about it.

Isn't the point of the Foreign Sec to be diplomatic?

Most of us know what Saudi Arabia is doing. It is hardly a secret. I doubt the Saudis are unaware what Johnson and the government think of them. We had May go to SA a few days ago to negotiate something that will be vital to us post brexit, a trade deal. So Johnson's casual condemnation of them, almost at the same time, is hardly something that will encourage further deals.

Face isn't something unique to Japan.

Regardless of whether you think we should be selling arms to SA, casually causing diplomatic problems is not what he should be doing. He doesn't seem to be able to help himself.

Or, come to that, help us.

Diplomacy of the sort you seem to want hasn't worked in the last 20 years or so. If it had, there wouldn't be any proxy wars for Boris to refer to.
Maybe it's time for a bit of naming and shaming.

Let's assume you are right and that we need to be told what, in this instance at least, most of us already know by way of the media outlets. Is it the Foreign sec's job to do it? Should he do it without the endorsement of his PM and the cabinet? Wouldn't it be better for there to be some plan?

We in this country, at least at the moment, are aware to a certain degree of the foreign wars being financed by SA.

You suggest that diplomacy doesn't work. I would suggest that there are many examples of where diplomacy has a positive effect on international relations. Further, you seem to want no wars. That's like something out of a beauty pageant wish list. There are always wars. However, do you think that Johnson's outburst has raised or lowered out influence in the area?

May was discussing trade relations with SA. I could think of a better time for Johnson to put his foot in it.

He said the wrong thing at the worst possible time. He is in the cabinet and, one would have thought, would have some degree of thought as to what he says, and when. He should be the mouthpiece of government foreign policy. Instead he is just mouthy.

[Derek Smith]

stitched said:

Not sure I get you here Derek.
Politician tells it like he sees it, and a lot of us agree with his sentiments. = bad.
Politician lies throough his back teeth and misrepresents the facts to people he is supposed to represent. = good.
I'm not sure yet whether Boris is a buffoon or an extremely clever man but to castigate him for delivering an honest opinion, really?

This is not a question of telling lies or of honest opinion. Of course it isn't.

He is the foreign secretary and in the cabinet. This means that he has a specific job to do and spouting off, which is all he did, in a manner that is likely to make his colleagues' work more difficult is not what the job entails. Further, he did so when his prime minister was talking to the Saudis in order to get a trade deal. His timing was about as bad as it could be, unless of course . . . see later.

We need trade deals. Whether we need to sell arms to what is essentially an outlaw state is something that he, like many others, might disagree with. However, if he does and wants to spout off, he can't be part of the cabinet and do so.

His needs and desires are secondary to those of the country and if he feels that this trade deal is not in our best interests, then he needs to convince May.

However, he might have well timed his outburst to perfection if, as is possible, he is after replacing May when she goes. If so then this is close to treachery. He should not put his needs against those of the UK.

Whether we should deal with the Saudis is open to argument. However, is there anyone of any intelligence who doesn't know what the Saudis are doing in the middle east?

Why did he do it? I hope he had no specific reason and it was just a another of his normal silly errors. If it was deliberate, then it certainly wasn't to inform the public. It will be selfish.

[Derek Smith]

Sylvaforever said:

Totally disagree Derek, you're letting your Remainer-ism cloud your judgement, as usual, these days.

That's it. Don't argue the point, just attack the poster. Jesus: can't you leave it alone?

Pathetic.

[Derek Smith]

Gandahar said:

Derek, sometimes morals need to be put above pure money. As an example look at BAE deals with Saudia Arabia, not many morals there?

Perhaps we need a 21st C approach to this region rather than 1980. It may cost us a bob or two, but then so will Brexit.

Are you suggesting that Johnson's outburst was deliberate and for moral reasons?

If you are suggesting that we should not deal with SA because they are a corrupt nation then that is an entirely different argument to our foreign sec pointlessly criticising a country that his PM is visiting at the time and he is to visit a little later.

If it is the latter then what should do about China (other countries ignoring basic human rights are available)?

It has been suggested that SA is our biggest market for weapons. Is it worth the loss of jobs, money and, let's face it, markets to make a point? If we don't sell then other countries will. It is not an easy question. Further, on a news channel one apologist government spokesperson reckoned that we do earn a modifying voice by working with them. I'm not sure we do, but isolation is not the answer as it is likely to backfire and we end up isolated.

What I'm really saying is that I can't decide.

I went to an arms fair in Brighton, some 25 years ago now. There was a cgi video, hopelessly crude now of course, but beautifully completed then. It showed a weapon being dropped from a Jet Provost, not specific to that plane, just demonstrating that even trainers were sufficient. The Provost did two passes on what was an imitation of a city street. The salesman proudly stated that after two passes he could guarantee a practically 100% casualty rate for anyone in the street.

The demonstrators outside were classified as the great unwashed. What did they know?

Conflicted of Burgess Hill

[Derek Smith]

Sylvaforever said:

Derek, I'm sorry if I have upset you, however the whole tone if your postings have changed, it really no longer seems to be the Derek of old.

It's the continual harping about brexit that has probably changed my tone. The referendum is over, gone. I have, to use the phrase I used earlier, moved on. Yesterday my rugby team was beaten in a match we could have won and needed to win. Yet 40 mins after the final whistle the teams had mixed and they were chatting to one another.

I criticised Johnson before the referendum, his duplicity during the campaign only reinforcing my opinion of him.

Bringing up that I voted remain on threads that are hardly relevant as a seeming trump card irritates. It ruins discussions as well because the 'accusation' is unanswerable because it has nothing to do with the argument.

Thanks for the apology. I overreacted to you playing the man.

[Derek Smith]

Thorodin said:

What a diversion from reality. The Saudis are no more appeased by the obviously phoney over-friendly obsequiousness of some politicians than they are offended by Johnson's remarks. Despots that treat citizens like the Saudi rulers do couldn't give a fig for the creepy overtures and are hardly likely to take offence at what the For. Sec. said. They are fully aware of their image across the world. The latest word re-introduced by Johnson when describing his latest excursion into everyday diplomacy seems to be 'candour' and that's about time. To denigrate an official for what Johnson said, and if the clip is studied properly rather than jumping up and down in mock horror, the truth is a good distance from what has been reported or inferred. Political allegiances aside, a spot of goodwill would be welcome.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Saudis are that shallow. It is hardly relevant.

What is the point in question is that Johnson criticised them at a most inappropriate moment and against the cabinet's policy. We get nothing from the criticism. There is no advantage to us. Nor can it be part of a plan that the cabinet is considering. May, for heaven's sake, was there at the time and Johnson was to visit withing days.

So rulers don't give a fig for creepy overtures, but they are concerned about their image. If a politician, especially one holding one of the great offices of state, suggests that they are in some way funding wars and manipulating situations for their own advantage, and in circumstances where the public hear of it, they might be forced into reacting.

They are a totally obnoxious regime but the government sees them as a trading partner, something which Johnson is probably aware of. So why the criticism? It is silly posturing, something which gains us nothing. And it puts at risk jobs in this country.

It will have irritated the Saudis given their history of posturing. They have been given an excuse to react. It's politics and candour has no place.

[Derek Smith]

Gandahar said:

Derek, sometimes morals need to be put above pure money. As an example look at BAE deals with Saudia Arabia, not many morals there?

Perhaps we need a 21st C approach to this region rather than 1980. It may cost us a bob or two, but then so will Brexit.

Some would suggest that morals should always be put above financial advantage. However, it is not the point.

The cabinet wants to sell arms and other material to the Saudis. If Johnson has a problem with this then he should, must, leave the cabinet. We can't have the foreign secretary going off on his own, setting his own agenda. It undermines the PM almost at the time she was negotiating with them.

If Johnson did it deliberately then ask why he did it at that specific time, just when his boss was trying to get something out of them. If he didn't do it on purpose then his mouth has run away with him.

I am anti armament sales to the Saudis, and to the middle east in general come to that.