Boris Johnson - Secret Weapon OR Achilles Heel?
Discussion
avinalarf said:
I am losing confidence in Boris.
His buffoonery is not what I want to see or hear from a person in High Office.
The next years will be a hard slog,what with Brexit and the many other problems of foreign policy,terrorism etc.
I prefer to see some gravitas and however academically bright and clever Boris is,for me it's not translating into a man I can trust to lead us forward.
His buffoonery is not what I want to see or hear from a person in High Office.
The next years will be a hard slog,what with Brexit and the many other problems of foreign policy,terrorism etc.
I prefer to see some gravitas and however academically bright and clever Boris is,for me it's not translating into a man I can trust to lead us forward.
Indeed. I laughed when I heard him on the radio this morning, and actually agreed with most of what he had to say but it's the way he says it.
No doubt he's clever, but he appears to have zero tact or thought about how he comes across whatsoever (a la Trump) which isn't great for a supposed statesman.
I don't care about what school he went to or how much money he has. But I do care that he comes across as, essentially, an amiable buffoon.
sidicks said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
I didn't mention labour. 
I never said you did.What you did do though, as I am now having to laboriously pointing out, is ignore a substantive point about why someone's school background is of legitimate concern in the context of political progression in favour of blowing a dog whistle on Labour which then brings all the boys to the yard, to coin a phrase.
Chips & shoulders, old boy, chips & shoulders.
Eddie Strohacker said:
I know. I can read.
And yet you chose to make a nonsense point. Strange.Eddie Strohacker said:
What you did do though, as I am now having to laboriously pointing out, is ignore a substantive point about why someone's school background is of legitimate concern in the context of political progression in favour of blowing a dog whistle on Labour which then brings all the boys to the yard, to coin a phrase.
Substantive? That's your opinion.I ignored nothing, I just chose to make a different, but related point.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Chips & shoulders, old boy, chips & shoulders.
Exactly.Afraid not. I can live with forgetfulness. Willful obtuseness is a different matter.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt though, let's jog your obviously poor memory.
Wut?? 
Giving you the benefit of the doubt though, let's jog your obviously poor memory.
sidicks said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
One could argue that the salient personal slight here is a serving foreign secretary deploying a personal insult against the leader of Her Majesty's opposition.
No matter. On the school issue, quite right - a child has little say on where they are sent. The outcome of those decisions however is demonstrably a serious discrimination against those who weren't fortunate enough to have benefited from the enormous discrete advantages of landing a place at one of those schools & especially that one. 19 out of 54 to date.
We do not live in a meritocracy, few people in the world do and that is a shame.
The whole Labour ethos appears to be about pulling people down to the lowest common denominator, not providing the opportunity for people to pull themselves up. The Labour approach to grammar schools is a perfect demonstration of that.No matter. On the school issue, quite right - a child has little say on where they are sent. The outcome of those decisions however is demonstrably a serious discrimination against those who weren't fortunate enough to have benefited from the enormous discrete advantages of landing a place at one of those schools & especially that one. 19 out of 54 to date.
We do not live in a meritocracy, few people in the world do and that is a shame.
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 27th April 09:45
Wobbegong said:
Some bizarre inverse snobbery. There seems to be a dislike of those who want to better the lives of their family.
If you wanted the best house on your street, you could1. improve your home
2. ruin everyone else's home
3. do 1 & 2.
Most people would choose to do 1.
Boris, and his ilk, like to do 3.
I've never envied those who have more more wealth than me, or had better opportunities. What I personally don't like is those people who are not content to just win at life... they need to see others lose as well.
esxste said:
If you wanted the best house on your street, you could
1. improve your home
2. ruin everyone else's home
3. do 1 & 2.
Most people would choose to do 1.
Boris, and his ilk, like to do 3.
I've never envied those who have more more wealth than me, or had better opportunities. What I personally don't like is those people who are not content to just win at life... they need to see others lose as well.
That seems very much like a Labour approach - please can you explain how 'Boris and his ilk' do 3)?1. improve your home
2. ruin everyone else's home
3. do 1 & 2.
Most people would choose to do 1.
Boris, and his ilk, like to do 3.
I've never envied those who have more more wealth than me, or had better opportunities. What I personally don't like is those people who are not content to just win at life... they need to see others lose as well.
The Tories have been bashing Corbyn on security.
What's the first thing on all the news shows today? The tories would seek military action against genocidal dictators, and Corbyn wouldn't.
Ignore all the 'rah rah, whiff whiff, Titian, mugwumps, piffle' stuff - he's bang on message and the media is helpfully broadcasting that message for him.
What's the first thing on all the news shows today? The tories would seek military action against genocidal dictators, and Corbyn wouldn't.
Ignore all the 'rah rah, whiff whiff, Titian, mugwumps, piffle' stuff - he's bang on message and the media is helpfully broadcasting that message for him.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Then considering it was a binary choice between forgetfulness & behaving in an obviously obtuse manner, I thank you for clearing it up for me.
It's only a 'binary choice' in your world. Fortunately we don't live in your world.Thank you for making no point whatsoever.
Justayellowbadge said:
The Tories have been bashing Corbyn on security.
What's the first thing on all the news shows today? The tories would seek military action against genocidal dictators, and Corbyn wouldn't.
Ignore all the 'rah rah, whiff whiff, Titian, mugwumps, piffle' stuff - he's bang on message and the media is helpfully broadcasting that message for him.
For me that's the problem with Boris.What's the first thing on all the news shows today? The tories would seek military action against genocidal dictators, and Corbyn wouldn't.
Ignore all the 'rah rah, whiff whiff, Titian, mugwumps, piffle' stuff - he's bang on message and the media is helpfully broadcasting that message for him.
Whether he's on message or not,that message is obscured and trivialised by the clowning about.
If you want political comedy watch "Yes minister" when I listen to a politician I want to feel he actually knows what he's talking about and not just waffling.
Having met a few ministers I have come to believe that the best we can expect from them is that they are ,at best ,good communicators,expecting them to deliver what they communicate is often wishful thinking.
sidicks said:
That seems very much like a Labour approach - please can you explain how 'Boris and his ilk' do 3)?
Is it exclusively a Labour approach, or are you just trying to attach a loaded label in preparation for an ad hominem attack?A specific example might be the Royal Mail. Owned by the public through the Government, and funded via the taxpayer. Sold off for a bargain price to wealthy and connected investors, who promptly re-sold the shares on the open market for an inflated price, pocketing a nice tidy profit at the expense of the tax payer.
I was invited to a dinner party hosted by the local farmer who I did some weekend "pest control" for when I was at RAF Benson and Boris was also there (local MP back in '08 IIRC). He came across as a very funny, very intelligent guy who had a lot of time for everyone and someone who fit the bill perfectly as the archetypal "Eccentric Country Gent" so it's a surprise to see him as the Foreign Secretary now.
I have no doubt he's very under-estimated by some due to his comical appearance and demeanour, which must be seen as both a benefit and a hindrance to the Government, so post the Election I wonder if there still will be a place for him?
I have no doubt he's very under-estimated by some due to his comical appearance and demeanour, which must be seen as both a benefit and a hindrance to the Government, so post the Election I wonder if there still will be a place for him?
IanH755 said:
I have no doubt he's very under-estimated by some due to his comical appearance and demeanour, which must be seen as both a benefit and a hindrance to the Government, so post the Election I wonder if there still will be a place for him?
There will, if for no other reason than the logistics of tents and urination. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff