BOJO bights the dust.

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Lest we all forget reality...

BoJo’s job was to extract the UK from the Europeon Union (sic) via Brexit. As such, he is an enemy of globalism. He would’ve had a hell of a lot of enemies. The media attacks were never-ending, coming from an infinite well of funding.

The same funding’ that’s got you people spinning your heads round and round.

So why has he had over 50 members of his own cabinet resign over the past three years?

[OftenWrong]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So why has he had over 50 members of his own cabinet resign over the past three years?

You tell me. It’s your thread. I gave the info from WSJ. Those are the main reasons.

Brits are more about decorum than function. They need things prim and proper. They’d rather have a leader who acts the part according to their pre-conceived notions of a PM, even if incompetent, than one who is ill-mannered and rude but gets the job done.

That and the fact they are slaves to the mainstream, consolidated media.

The exact same goes for Canada. That’s why we have Trudeau.

[OftenWrong]

26 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You don't dig very deep do you.

I am trying to understand it. So far all you’ve given is “because others in his government walked out.” Maybe you need to dig a little deeper. There’s a lot more at play here than what you read on tabloid headlines in the grocery aisle.

... which is about the extent of most people’s political knowledge.

Edited July 8, 2022 by OftenWrong

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I am trying to understand it. So far all you’ve given is “because others in his government walked out.” Maybe you need to dig a little deeper. There’s a lot more at play here than what you read on tabloid headlines in the grocery aisle.

... which is about the extent of most people’s political knowledge.

You think he had over 50 members of his own cabinet resign over the years because of what they red in tabloids?

The last straw was naming his chief whip someone accused of sexual misconduct. First he said he didn't know. Then he said he did know but nothing specific, then he said he did know. That's vintage Johnson. Like Trump, he is always the victim and never responsible for anything. People just get tired of going to bat for him, only to find out he was lying or being deliberately misleading. This is not a person anyone with ethics can work for very long because he has none of his own. 

[OftenWrong]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You think he had over 50 members of his own cabinet resign over the years because of what they red in tabloids?

The last straw was naming his chief whip someone accused of sexual misconduct. First he said he didn't know. Then he said he did know but nothing specific, then he said he did know. That's vintage Johnson. Like Trump, he is always the victim and never responsible for anything. People just get tired of going to bat for him, only to find out he was lying or being deliberately misleading. This is not a person anyone with ethics can work for very long because he has none of his own. 

Again, just a bunch of hooey. Not even good or interesting political hooey. 

I already wrote about that earlier, you’re still not adding anything of value to the thread.

I guess I dig a little deeper, and faster, than you.  

Practically every Brit aged 50+ makes “unwanted sexual advances” from time to time. This was not even Johnson, it was someone else.

I didn’t see where he lost over 50 cabinet members. I read it was several cabinet members followed by a few dozen lesser officials. The kind of people who get persuaded to quit, with a firm offer of re-employment once he’s gone.

Edited July 8, 2022 by OftenWrong

[Aristides]

Among other things, he flat out lied during the Brexit campaign and has single handedly rejuvenated the separatist movement in Scotland, Wales and could end up being responsible for the reunification of Ireland. In short, the end of the United Kingdom.

Britain had the highest number of Covid deaths in Western Europe, largely to his scatelogical approach, exemplified by party gate. People don't appreciate making sacrifices and lock downs when the PM and his circle are partying. He was fined by police for breaking his own rules. The only time that has happened to any PM.

The UK economy is in the tank. UK inflation is 9.1% and the Bank of England expects it to exceed 11% by October.

Quote

The International Monetary Fund said in April that Britain faced more persistent inflation, as well as slower growth, than any other major economy in 2023.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_departures_from_the_second_Johnson_ministry

Edited July 8, 2022 by Aristides

[OftenWrong]

CBC article says all the same things I mentioned, but little else.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6513075

The main reason is scandals involving improper behaviour, parties during Covid. Other stuff like Covid and health care promises that didn’t materialize are mentioned way at the bottom, as these are obviously weaker arguments.

Not surprised that the left approves of a democratically elected PM being ousted for no reason. They invented the reasons, through a media driven program of outrage. That’s the new modern manipulation tool that keeps folks believing they’re making all the right choices.

Ironically some of the best leaders in Canadian and US history were considered rude and outspoken. Even Winston Churchill, I believe. He was felt to be the only man possible who could take on the challenge of leadership during that incredibly difficult time. These men would never last in today’s environment. They would be replaced by a virtue signalling coward who says all the right words.

[Aristides]

Also, the Conservatives just lost two bye elections in ridings where they had big majorities in the last election. Brits are fed up with their undisciplined carney barker who thinks rules for normal people don't apply to him.

[Aristides]

BOJO is not a Churchill. Churchill showed a lot more discipline in both his personal and professional life. Outspoken at times maybe but not trivial or dismissive.

Among other things, he saw action in three wars as a soldier and was a war correspondent in Cuba and South Africa where he was captured, escaped from a POW camp and spent weeks on the run with a price on his head before reaching safety. He demonstrated physical bravery that BOJO and Bone Spurs have only fantasized about. Oh, and he also won a Nobel Prize for literature.

Edited July 8, 2022 by Aristides

[-TSS-]

In the British political system when they have an election and the government loses then on the next day after the election the leader of the largest opposition-party becomes PM. That is if they have an absolute majority though. 

However, against this background it seems odd that in the case when the PM steps down in the middle of the term it takes a ridiculously long time to elect a successor. 

[Aristides]

The Queen can appoint an interm PM but it would have to be someone who isn't in the running to be the new leader.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

Churchill showed a lot more discipline in both his personal and professional life. Outspoken at times maybe but not trivial or dismissive.

Nonsense. I never said they were identical. You are just grasping at straws here to try and refute what I’ve said.

I saw a documentary about Churchill years ago. It explained he was political persona non-grata for years, until the rise of the Hun. That’s when he showed great leadership.

As a politician, Churchill was perceived by some observers to have been largely motivated by personal ambition rather than political principle. During his early parliamentary career, he was often deliberately provocative and argumentative to an unusual degree; and his barbed rhetorical style earned him many enemies in parliament.

Note the part I bolded.

 

[Iceni warrior]

It was simply one lie too many in the end.

He lied to the Queen, he lied to Parliament, he lied to the electorate.

When he lied about his appointment of a known sex pest the party had just had enough.

Should have happened after he unlawfully prorogued Parliament IMO but the Tories don't have that much integrity.

[Aristides]

48 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Nonsense. I never said they were identical. You are just grasping at straws here to try and refute what I’ve said.

I saw a documentary about Churchill years ago. It explained he was political persona non-grata for years, until the rise of the Hun. That’s when he showed great leadership.

As a politician, Churchill was perceived by some observers to have been largely motivated by personal ambition rather than political principle. During his early parliamentary career, he was often deliberately provocative and argumentative to an unusual degree; and his barbed rhetorical style earned him many enemies in parliament.

Note the part I bolded.

 

Most politicians are motivated by personal ambition, at least the ones looking for high office. Churchill was a workaholic who took his job seriously and knew a lot about showmanship. BOJO is too lazy to do real work and relies almost completely on showmanship.

[-TSS-]

Perhaps Wallace will win after all. Sunak may be British but for too many British people he just isn't. 

[Aristides]

49 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

Perhaps Wallace will win after all. Sunak may be British but for too many British people he just isn't. 

Who knows, I never thought Obama would have a chance.

[SpankyMcFarland]

High office requires more than an ability to talk. Restraint, consistency, a clear political vision and a love of hard work are also necessary. Johnson was an entertaining, although highly unreliable, journalist and a passable Mayor of London but lacked the gravitas for a major post in cabinet, let alone the top job. While all politicians are obliged to mislead the public on occasion, they must hate getting caught at it. He had no such concern and it showed. In the end, his party colleagues got tired telling lies for him. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 7/8/2022 at 9:56 PM, -TSS- said:

Perhaps Wallace will win after all. Sunak may be British but for too many British people he just isn't. 

Wallace never stood a chance. He’s painful to listen to. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

I suspect it will come down to Sunak vs Mordaunt or Truss. One of the women will make it to the final two and then hope the party is less meritocratic in its thinking than MPs are. Mordaunt’s cv is light - she looks the part and that’s about it - while Truss has a bit of the awkward Maybot energy going on. But is the party ready for someone like Sunak? 

Edited July 19, 2022 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

The 24/7 surveillance of politicians these days has its benefits. Given his serious health problems, Churchill would never have become PM again in the face of such scrutiny. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 7/8/2022 at 12:53 AM, OftenWrong said:

Lest we all forget reality...BoJo’s job was to extract the UK from the Europeon Union (sic) via Brexit.

There’s yet more trouble to be had there. The Brexiteers never considered Northern Ireland in their plans. BoJo thought that telling different stories to the DUP and EU would do the trick but that hasn’t worked out so well. 
 

Britain leaving the EU is like a wildebeest telling its friends it’s sick of the tyranny of the herd and feels it can negotiate a better deal with all these lions independently. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by SpankyMcFarland

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

There’s yet more trouble to be had there. The Brexiteers never considered Northern Ireland in their plans. BoJo thought that telling different stories to the DUP and EU would do the trick but that hasn’t worked out so well. 
 

Britain leaving the EU is like a wildebeest telling its friends it’s sick of the tyranny of the herd and feels it can negotiate a better deal with all these lions independently. 

You make it sound like there's no way a country can exist without embracing your blessed globalismus,

Perhaps you forgot that the UK is a superpower, and was in fact the most powerful nation in the world not so very long ago. They didn't get that way by depending on countries like France, or the Germans. Who the heck would trust the Germans anyway. So stupid, it hurts. Better stand back because she's going down, it's a quagmire. A long cold winter is coming. Germans have chosen to deal with the devil, and will continue to pay Russia for their natural gas. Let them own their destiny, which was made by their choice through self-determination.

"One need only slit open the belly of the beast, then stand back and watch it eat its own guts out."

Arthur Pendragon-OftenWrong

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You make it sound like there's no way a country can exist without embracing your blessed globalismus,

Perhaps you forgot that the UK is a superpower, and was in fact the most powerful nation in the world not so very long ago. They didn't get that way by depending on countries like France, or the Germans.

The UK was a superpower - all the way back in the 19’th century - which is a long, long time ago. Such a position depended heavily on European alliances. The Little Englanders behind Brexit will now face years of tedious negotiation with the great trading blocs of the world, including the EU, and may have just succeeded in destroying the UK as well. 

[OftenWrong]

10 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The UK was a superpower - all the way back in the 19’th century - which is a long, long time ago. Such a position depended heavily on European alliances. The Little Englanders behind Brexit will now face years of tedious negotiation with the great trading blocs of the world, including the EU, and may have just succeeded in destroying the UK as well. 

They still are a “superpower”, if having nukes defines that, among other things like military and economic status. 

Brexit is about short term pain and long term gain. They will ride it out and become stronger in the long run than had they stayed in. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 7/20/2022 at 9:15 AM, OftenWrong said:

They still are a “superpower”, if having nukes defines that, among other things like military and economic status. 

Brexit is about short term pain and long term gain. They will ride it out and become stronger in the long run than had they stayed in. 

If having nukes defines it then you’d also have to include the likes of Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea and France (as well as Iran soon) - hardly a list of superpowers. Russia was a superpower; China and the US are superpowers. That’s it. Like Canada, the UK is just a medium-sized Western country. 

Edited July 22, 2022 by SpankyMcFarland