Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Surely Boris Has To Go Now?
Who is sticking up for Boris now? None of the papers as far as I can see.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. 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.
The majority of politicians are self-serving bstds. The back-benchers, Mitchel, Davis, etc. know they have no future in Boris' coming cabinets, so they want a change whereby they may have a chance on the greasy pole.
The opposition want Boris out knowing that a new leader (Sunak say) would be a weaker force in the future election, & the media are almost entirely left-wing dominated anyway.
I personally think Boris will survive it all, but he will have to buck up & change his style somewhat.
The opposition want Boris out knowing that a new leader (Sunak say) would be a weaker force in the future election, & the media are almost entirely left-wing dominated anyway.
I personally think Boris will survive it all, but he will have to buck up & change his style somewhat.
Apparently, in the meeting with the Tory party afterwards, Johnson said something along the lines of "I nearly died of this [ie, Covid], of course I take it seriously". I am confused why he didn't say so in the Commons. I'm confused, too, why he pointedly refused to commit to releasing the full Gray report, when it becomes available, only for Downing Street to confirm that this would happen barely a couple of hours later.
If that's so, why didn't he repeat the confirmation yesterday? He was invited to, twice, and refused to both times.
Still, it's the absence of the first quote in the Commons that confuses me more. I genuinely don't get why he only thought of that line, or only saw fit to use it, in a private meeting as opposed to a public one.
Still, it's the absence of the first quote in the Commons that confuses me more. I genuinely don't get why he only thought of that line, or only saw fit to use it, in a private meeting as opposed to a public one.
Well he didn’t really as we’ve established.
It turns out that he “may” have referred to a statement he made way back on Dec 8 saying that it would go in the library. I suspect he couldn’t actually remember what he’d said that far back so was playing safe. Yesterday, first Diane Abbott asked him, then Mark Harper, then at least two others, and he evaded the question every time.
Plainly Downing St bowed to the pressure shortly after. All of which gives the impression of weak leadership
It turns out that he “may” have referred to a statement he made way back on Dec 8 saying that it would go in the library. I suspect he couldn’t actually remember what he’d said that far back so was playing safe. Yesterday, first Diane Abbott asked him, then Mark Harper, then at least two others, and he evaded the question every time.
Plainly Downing St bowed to the pressure shortly after. All of which gives the impression of weak leadership
In this particular case, Naomi, I think you're clearly misunderstanding my point. Perhaps the below will make it plainer.
It's now established as a matter of fact that there were multiple parties in Downing Street, at a time when there weren't supposed to be such events according to the rules of the time. The question of whether or not they broke the law to a criminal standard we can set aside. Also, let us accept as a starting point that Johnson himself was unaware of these goings-on, or at least of most of them. In those circumstances, Johnson himself has been lied to or misled by his officials, and he has been embarrassed by them nationally for weeks on end, dragging into months. He should be furious. The line about having nearly died himself fits this narrative perfectly.
Where, then, was it? At the moment it seems to me that Johnson's anger, at least in public, is not at those who caused the issue, which I assumed above does not include him, and instead at those who continue to bring it up.
It is, at the very least, a serious missed opportunity in this case. "There is a culture at Downing Street of contempt for the rules and contempt for those whom the officials are supposed to serve. I have failed to stop it thus far. I will not continue to fail one moment longer" strikes me as a very powerful message. Coupled with that personal story, of how the contempt is personally wounding because it attacks victims of the very disease of which he himself almost died, I would have thought that ironically there's some political capital that Johnson could make of this.
In essence, this is what I'm criticising Johnson of the most: he's just suddenly bad at politics. It barely matters if he was at any of these events or not. It *does* matter that he hasn't shown any capability in dealing with the matter remotely effectively.
It's now established as a matter of fact that there were multiple parties in Downing Street, at a time when there weren't supposed to be such events according to the rules of the time. The question of whether or not they broke the law to a criminal standard we can set aside. Also, let us accept as a starting point that Johnson himself was unaware of these goings-on, or at least of most of them. In those circumstances, Johnson himself has been lied to or misled by his officials, and he has been embarrassed by them nationally for weeks on end, dragging into months. He should be furious. The line about having nearly died himself fits this narrative perfectly.
Where, then, was it? At the moment it seems to me that Johnson's anger, at least in public, is not at those who caused the issue, which I assumed above does not include him, and instead at those who continue to bring it up.
It is, at the very least, a serious missed opportunity in this case. "There is a culture at Downing Street of contempt for the rules and contempt for those whom the officials are supposed to serve. I have failed to stop it thus far. I will not continue to fail one moment longer" strikes me as a very powerful message. Coupled with that personal story, of how the contempt is personally wounding because it attacks victims of the very disease of which he himself almost died, I would have thought that ironically there's some political capital that Johnson could make of this.
In essence, this is what I'm criticising Johnson of the most: he's just suddenly bad at politics. It barely matters if he was at any of these events or not. It *does* matter that he hasn't shown any capability in dealing with the matter remotely effectively.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.