One Hundred Years Of Solitude. Netflix.
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Should Boris resign?
This poll is closed.
- Yes - 102 votes
- 47%
- No - 81 votes
- 37%
- Who cares? - 20 votes
- 9%
- This doesn't apply to me - 8 votes
- 4%
- Who's Boris? - 6 votes
- 3%
Stats until: 10:35 Tue 31st Dec 2024 (Refreshed every 5 minutes)
© AnswerBank Ltd 2000 - 2024. All Rights Reserved.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Editor. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Granted it is from a tabloid but 43 reasons that make you unfit to be PM is quite a stretch ! Lol
https:/
https:/
pat2604
Do you think whoever leaked information about parties the night before the funeral had any respect for the Queen she need never have
known! And we're they parties or just Friday night drinks with a few colleagues. I prefer to see the report.
——-
I guess the difference between Friday drinks and a party is whether or not there was a clown there for entertainment and to be fair to Boris he was not in attendance at all so at least we can distinguish !
Do you think whoever leaked information about parties the night before the funeral had any respect for the Queen she need never have
known! And we're they parties or just Friday night drinks with a few colleagues. I prefer to see the report.
——-
I guess the difference between Friday drinks and a party is whether or not there was a clown there for entertainment and to be fair to Boris he was not in attendance at all so at least we can distinguish !
naomi - // is term in office has been the most difficult of any prime minister since the war. No one has has anything like it on their plate. That people are so willing to forget that and ditch him over something as petty as a group of work colleagues having a drink together should surprise me, but people being people, it doesn’t. Dogs are more loyal. //
I remain amazed at your stance on this.
Not that you disagree that Boris should be sacked - but the utter paucity of your defence.
What you appear to be saying, and do correct me if I am wrong - is that because the PM has presided over one of the most horrendous periods in history - no argument there - we should allow some flagrant rule breaking by the very people who make the rules, to slide as a kind of reward for all that stress and hard work.
Well I don't believe politics, or indeed life, works like that.
You don't get to store up credit in the morality bank by doing good things, simply so you can call on that credit when you are found to have behaved inexcusably badly, breaking the law which you made, as you do it.
Boris Johnson should, with the integrity and simple decency that goes with his office, have been able to stand up in the Commons and say -
'I knew nothing whatsoever about any rule-breaking parties among the staff of the government of which I am the head.
It is against not only the law of the land, and the simple law of morality that says we cannot be seen to be ignoring the rules that we enforce so rigidly on everyone else.
On that basis, I will ensure that every single person who either organised or attended any such parties / work gatherings / Teddy Bears' Picnics, call them what you will, is dismissed from their job forthwith.
I obey the law, I expect my staff to obey the law, and I will take action against anyone who does not obey the law.
How could I, in all conscience, do anything else?'
Instead, he is virtually having to have an 'Apology' pro forma printed out - just fill in the details and send it off - to saved time.
His behaviour is appalling, and I remain, as i say, not only amazed that you defend it, but that your defence is only slightly more feeble and pointless than his.
I remain amazed at your stance on this.
Not that you disagree that Boris should be sacked - but the utter paucity of your defence.
What you appear to be saying, and do correct me if I am wrong - is that because the PM has presided over one of the most horrendous periods in history - no argument there - we should allow some flagrant rule breaking by the very people who make the rules, to slide as a kind of reward for all that stress and hard work.
Well I don't believe politics, or indeed life, works like that.
You don't get to store up credit in the morality bank by doing good things, simply so you can call on that credit when you are found to have behaved inexcusably badly, breaking the law which you made, as you do it.
Boris Johnson should, with the integrity and simple decency that goes with his office, have been able to stand up in the Commons and say -
'I knew nothing whatsoever about any rule-breaking parties among the staff of the government of which I am the head.
It is against not only the law of the land, and the simple law of morality that says we cannot be seen to be ignoring the rules that we enforce so rigidly on everyone else.
On that basis, I will ensure that every single person who either organised or attended any such parties / work gatherings / Teddy Bears' Picnics, call them what you will, is dismissed from their job forthwith.
I obey the law, I expect my staff to obey the law, and I will take action against anyone who does not obey the law.
How could I, in all conscience, do anything else?'
Instead, he is virtually having to have an 'Apology' pro forma printed out - just fill in the details and send it off - to saved time.
His behaviour is appalling, and I remain, as i say, not only amazed that you defend it, but that your defence is only slightly more feeble and pointless than his.
The Tories have ditched more competent leaders for far less. It's a surprise that they're holding on to Boris Johnson so tightly.
The longer he remains leader, the worse the Tories' prospects at the next election, because it would become far more a referendum on his Premiership than on substantive policy matters. The most obvious precedent is the run-up to the 1997 Election.
At some point soon, he'll go -- because the Tories will recognise this soon enough, if they haven't already.
The longer he remains leader, the worse the Tories' prospects at the next election, because it would become far more a referendum on his Premiership than on substantive policy matters. The most obvious precedent is the run-up to the 1997 Election.
At some point soon, he'll go -- because the Tories will recognise this soon enough, if they haven't already.
last month two women were each fined £1100 in Westminster courts after being in a flat in Holborn, on the same day as one of the Boris parties. Threat of prison if they didn't pay up.
https:/
Funny, I don't recall any threads on AB protesting at the unfairness of this. Only when darling Boris is caught does the breast-beating begin.
https:/
Funny, I don't recall any threads on AB protesting at the unfairness of this. Only when darling Boris is caught does the breast-beating begin.
Boris should be subject to exactly the same laws and penalties as anyone else in the country - but his case is much worse morally because he made the laws in the first place.
London courts alone have dished out more than £1m in lockdown fines - all at the behest of a government who thought laws only applied to other people
https:/
London courts alone have dished out more than £1m in lockdown fines - all at the behest of a government who thought laws only applied to other people
https:/
There is only one consideration that back-benchers will take into consideration when pondering whether or not to send a letter of no-confidence to the 1922 committee [50-odd required]. They don't give a damn really about parties in the garden, like all politicians they have only one big worry, "Does this party-leader enhance or mar my chances of being re-elected?"
If they conclude the latter, off goes the letter.
If they conclude the latter, off goes the letter.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
