Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 2)
Discussion
JagLover said:
IforB said:
Of course it is a matter of competence. You can't spin that as anything but a shambles.
Even with a 3 line whip in place, Johnson couldn't even keep order in his own party. A leader who cannot command the respect of their own organisation is not much of a leader.
What this tells you is that Johnson thought he'd have the horsepower to get things through Parliament, but they didn't.
They didn't even command enough support from their own team to maintain control of the Parliamentary order paper. They had no ability to stop those opposed to them.
.
What that tells me is that Johnson wanted to get rid of two dozen Tory Remainers before a GE campaign. What went wrong was Labour not agreeing to a GE on 15 October, but that is a matter of delay rather than the fundamental strategy being necessarily wrong. We will have to wait to see how things turn out to asses that. Even with a 3 line whip in place, Johnson couldn't even keep order in his own party. A leader who cannot command the respect of their own organisation is not much of a leader.
What this tells you is that Johnson thought he'd have the horsepower to get things through Parliament, but they didn't.
They didn't even command enough support from their own team to maintain control of the Parliamentary order paper. They had no ability to stop those opposed to them.
.
Amazing. That is some top level strategic thinking right there.
Any PM who gets out-played politically by Jeremy Corbyn can only be described as useless. The worst opposition leader I can recall has managed to garner enough support to stop the Government doing what it wants.
That doesn't scream competence to me.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
philv said:
So be should stand there and just suffer tne abuse?
He should have told tnem to f
k off imho.
The eu are playing games and trying to humilliate, etc a representative of tne uk/tne uk.
The allegence to tne eu is s great, that people are happy to have the uk treated like this.
What abuse?He should have told tnem to f
k off imho.The eu are playing games and trying to humilliate, etc a representative of tne uk/tne uk.
The allegence to tne eu is s great, that people are happy to have the uk treated like this.
The EU don't need to humiliate the UK, they are doing an excellent job of it all by themselves.
They do not want the uk to ,eave and are doing everything possible to stop it.
Part of that is trying to discredit any brexit pm.
It was extremely undiplomatic to have protesters there.
philv said:
Stay in Bed Instead said:
philv said:
So be should stand there and just suffer tne abuse?
He should have told tnem to fk off imho.
The eu are playing games and trying to humilliate, etc a representative of tne uk/tne uk.
The allegence to tne eu is s great, that people are happy to have the uk treated like this.
What abuse?He should have told tnem to f
k off imho.The eu are playing games and trying to humilliate, etc a representative of tne uk/tne uk.
The allegence to tne eu is s great, that people are happy to have the uk treated like this.
The EU don't need to humiliate the UK, they are doing an excellent job of it all by themselves.
They do not want the uk to ,eave and are doing everything possible to stop it.
Part of that is trying to discredit any brexit pm.
It was extremely undiplomatic to have protesters there.
Even if it was deliberate, Boris allowed himself to be played and made to look like a fool.
XCP said:
Please explain how he was forced to ( at best) mislead The Queen?
He didn't mislead the queen.It's simply a co-incidence that both he and the Government apparently aren't submitting anything stating why they advised the Queen to prorogue.
In court, where it would be legally binding.
IforB said:
JagLover said:
IforB said:
Of course it is a matter of competence. You can't spin that as anything but a shambles.
Even with a 3 line whip in place, Johnson couldn't even keep order in his own party. A leader who cannot command the respect of their own organisation is not much of a leader.
What this tells you is that Johnson thought he'd have the horsepower to get things through Parliament, but they didn't.
They didn't even command enough support from their own team to maintain control of the Parliamentary order paper. They had no ability to stop those opposed to them.
.
What that tells me is that Johnson wanted to get rid of two dozen Tory Remainers before a GE campaign. What went wrong was Labour not agreeing to a GE on 15 October, but that is a matter of delay rather than the fundamental strategy being necessarily wrong. We will have to wait to see how things turn out to asses that. Even with a 3 line whip in place, Johnson couldn't even keep order in his own party. A leader who cannot command the respect of their own organisation is not much of a leader.
What this tells you is that Johnson thought he'd have the horsepower to get things through Parliament, but they didn't.
They didn't even command enough support from their own team to maintain control of the Parliamentary order paper. They had no ability to stop those opposed to them.
.
Amazing. That is some top level strategic thinking right there.
Any PM who gets out-played politically by Jeremy Corbyn can only be described as useless. The worst opposition leader I can recall has managed to garner enough support to stop the Government doing what it wants.
That doesn't scream competence to me.
Jc was made to do nothing by his party.
Bj had a party riddled with rebels, may’s awful deal, and mps preoccupied with their own interests rather than democracy.
He has done as well as anybody could do imho.
IforB said:
What? Are you saying that as the person in charge, he was forced to do all of this? He was forced to make himself look like an incompetent fool?
A bold strategy. Let's see how it plays out...
As for the will of the people being for a no-deal. I don't remember that being an option on my ballot paper.
I think the european elections was a strong indicator that no deal is what the people want.A bold strategy. Let's see how it plays out...
As for the will of the people being for a no-deal. I don't remember that being an option on my ballot paper.
It'd annoy a few people but I really hope we get a second ref just to clarify this.
philv said:
Half of this is down to the eu.
They do not want the uk to ,eave and are doing everything possible to stop it.
Part of that is trying to discredit any brexit pm.
It was extremely undiplomatic to have protesters there.
Really? So when Trump had tens of thousands of Protesters and a large blimp overhead that was the UK being undiplomatic? They do not want the uk to ,eave and are doing everything possible to stop it.
Part of that is trying to discredit any brexit pm.
It was extremely undiplomatic to have protesters there.
Does the UK not want a Deal with the US? Could the UK not have banned those demonstrations - would that have been the 'right' thing to do in a Democracy? Similarly, should the EU have banned Protestors exercising their democratic rights to avoid being seen as 'undiplomatic'? Give over! 
Trump was heckled by angrier folks after the last mass shootings at a Press Conference, did he run away?
philv said:
..
They do not want the uk to ,eave and are doing everything possible to stop it.
Part of that is trying to discredit any brexit pm.
….
I don't think they realise how it REALLY plays. Telling the UK (Whether its Tusk or Verhofstadt or Veradker or Barnier or Juncker) that the UK will fail without the EU. Is not the best way to make the UK think "ooh sThey do not want the uk to ,eave and are doing everything possible to stop it.
Part of that is trying to discredit any brexit pm.
….
t we must stay" 
Said it before, said it again. They should be asking us what would make us stay. What tweaks could they make to keep the 2nd highest contributor to their coffers? Can we change Freedom of Movement. Can we adjust the ECJ over reach. Can we reduce your contributions. Anything.
But No, they keep trying Project fear. Which didn't work out well for them last time. Definition of insanity...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: He didn't mislead the queen.
It's simply a co-incidence that both he and the Government apparently aren't submitting anything stating why they advised the Queen to prorogue.
In court, where it would be legally binding.
Equally, it might be that they are not testifying because it is matter of principle for the government that the exercise of prerogative in a matter of prorogation is the exercise of a parliamentary function and therefore beyond the competence of the courts.It's simply a co-incidence that both he and the Government apparently aren't submitting anything stating why they advised the Queen to prorogue.
In court, where it would be legally binding.
psi310398 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: He didn't mislead the queen.
It's simply a co-incidence that both he and the Government apparently aren't submitting anything stating why they advised the Queen to prorogue.
In court, where it would be legally binding.
Equally, it might be that they are not testifying because it is matter of principle for the government that the exercise of prerogative in a matter of prorogation is the exercise of a parliamentary function and therefore beyond the competence of the courts.It's simply a co-incidence that both he and the Government apparently aren't submitting anything stating why they advised the Queen to prorogue.
In court, where it would be legally binding.
Seems a heck of a gamble vs. "Here are our reasons but we believe as a matter of principle that this is a decision for government".
I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive.
IforB said:
Ah right. So he wanted to remove his own MP's and the most recognisable people in the Tory party for most in the electorate in order to replace them with the General Election that he can't call as he lost their support...
.
Due to the FTPA he always needed Labour to help trigger a GE regardless of whether the rebels stayed in the party or not..
Also most of them are recognisable for the wrong reasons. Only Clark had any honour.
Coolbanana said:
philv said:
Half of this is down to the eu.
They do not want the uk to ,eave and are doing everything possible to stop it.
Part of that is trying to discredit any brexit pm.
It was extremely undiplomatic to have protesters there.
Really? So when Trump had tens of thousands of Protesters and a large blimp overhead that was the UK being undiplomatic? They do not want the uk to ,eave and are doing everything possible to stop it.
Part of that is trying to discredit any brexit pm.
It was extremely undiplomatic to have protesters there.
Does the UK not want a Deal with the US? Could the UK not have banned those demonstrations - would that have been the 'right' thing to do in a Democracy? Similarly, should the EU have banned Protestors exercising their democratic rights to avoid being seen as 'undiplomatic'? Give over! Trump was heckled by angrier folks after the last mass shootings at a Press Conference, did he run away?
It is obvious why they were there.
He made a class decision to decline.
He’s a brexit pm.
It is laughable tnat many will criticise him for breathing, then for holding his breath, for that reason.
Yet they will excuse the eu who see to criticise and humilliate the uk, it’s pm and it’s people.
I am a remainer, but i haven’t let it bias me to that extent.
WCZ said:
I think the european elections was a strong indicator that no deal is what the people want.
It'd annoy a few people but I really hope we get second ref just to clarify this.
In which case you may find that disappointment awaits youIt'd annoy a few people but I really hope we get second ref just to clarify this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49551893
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Aren't those two separate things though?
Seems a heck of a gamble vs. "Here are our reasons but we believe as a matter of principle that this is a decision for government".
I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive.
Giving reasons when your position is that this is none of the courts' business sounds a lot like accepting that court is entitled to ask for and get an account from the government. Seems a heck of a gamble vs. "Here are our reasons but we believe as a matter of principle that this is a decision for government".
I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive.
The government failing to turn up in court would smack of disrespect, however.
I suspect that the Treasury Devil or whoever is defending will suggest in the politest of terms that the courts butt out of what is essentially a political matter.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff