Boris to resign? (Speculation) And who should replace him?

[PHILIPE]

I'm no fan of Blair but what 'mess' are you referring to? The worldwide recession? Which Brown actually handled quite well, and things were beginning to improve, then Osborne's austerity measures put paid to that.

While they should have regulated the banks more the Tories wanted even less regulation.

Osborne's mates ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And yet another quote edited to significantly change its meaning

Has it?

Gove said "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying ... from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong. " (video here at about @01:10)

This has been slightly misquoted in this thread as

(he also said we'd had enough of experts during the Brexit process).

I’d rather have someone who listens to experts rather than being someone who has ‘had enough of experts’.

The misquotes look to me like they give a slight change in meaning but not a particularly significant one. There's still a very strong sense in Gove's original quote of not wanting to pay attention to experts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2020 ==

Johnson does need to go, but what I hate is how some politicians can leave office without being accountable to their failings. If he resigns just after the Transition Period ends and it's all chaos in 2021, he will have done a "David Cameron", that is, create a load of mess, and selfishly run away to make others have to clean it up.

True, but to put that into context, the same is true of almost any employee. If you leave your job, it would be almost unheard of for an employer to subsequently hold you to account for any failings (unless you actually broke the law or broke the terms of your contract in a significant way that makes it in their interest to pursue legal action against you).

The difference is of course that if you're a Government minister, your actions (both your failings and your successes) tend to impact many more people than is the case in most jobs.

 

[Meerkat]

The misquotes look to me like they give a slight change in meaning but not a particularly significant one. There's still a very strong sense in Gove's original quote of not wanting to pay attention to experts.

He was referring to a specific group of organisations, not experts in general, but it’s easy to edit into something else because of the ridiculous grandstanding and showmanship of the interviewer.

 

[edwin_m]

Gove said "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying ... from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong. " (video here at about @01:10)

So he's giving his opinion on the view of the people of the country, which may or may not be his own view - but probably is or he wouldn't be saying it.

Also he's saying that people are fed up with experts who consistently get it wrong, but he's not saying anything about experts who consistently get it right or even those with a variable success rate. Since the vast majority of "experts" considered Brexit to be a bad idea, it would be surprising if this didn't include some with a good track record in prediction.

So basically that quote is a smokescreen to "justify" ignoring all expert opinion and doing what he wanted to do anyway. Let's not forget that the consequences of Brexit are not with us yet so none of the predictions can be assessed properly.

 

[Meerkat]

So he's giving his opinion on the view of the people of the country, which may or may not be his own view - but probably is or he wouldn't be saying it.

Also he's saying that people are fed up with experts who consistently get it wrong, but he's not saying anything about experts who consistently get it right or even those with a variable success rate. Since the vast majority of "experts" considered Brexit to be a bad idea, it would be surprising if this didn't include some with a good track record in prediction.

So basically that quote is a smokescreen to "justify" ignoring all expert opinion and doing what he wanted to do anyway. Let's not forget that the consequences of Brexit are not with us yet so none of the predictions can be assessed properly.

That is your biased interpretation. The actual comment was pretty specific, and I don’t believe it justifies the constant use of it as “Gove doesn’t believe in experts”
i think Gove would be a decent leader, but just can’t picture the country being run by the baddie from Ghostbusters!

 

[edwin_m]

That is your biased interpretation. The actual comment was pretty specific, and I don’t believe it justifies the constant use of it as “Gove doesn’t believe in experts”
i think Gove would be a decent leader, but just can’t picture the country being run by the baddie from Ghostbusters!

So what do you think his opinion of experts is? And does it explain why he ignored the view of almost all of them?

 

[Meerkat]

So what do you think his opinion of experts is? And does it explain why he ignored the view of almost all of them?

I think his view of experts is pretty much the same as everybody else’s. His comments referred to a specific set of experts - we aren’t talking about scientists or doctors here.
He explained why they might not be credible in the interview, basically suggesting they were self-interested and previously inaccurate.
Also their opinions were only relevant to part of the debate. So even if you believed them you might think their points are less important than other aspects of the debate.
But let’s not let this degenerate into rerunning the Brexit debate. I accept that some people don’t like him due to his position on Brexit.

 

[edwin_m]

I think his view of experts is pretty much the same as everybody else’s. His comments referred to a specific set of experts - we aren’t talking about scientists or doctors here.
He explained why they might not be credible in the interview, basically suggesting they were self-interested and previously inaccurate.
Also their opinions were only relevant to part of the debate. So even if you believed them you might think their points are less important than other aspects of the debate.
But let’s not let this degenerate into rerunning the Brexit debate. I accept that some people don’t like him due to his position on Brexit.

This is of course your own interpretation, where you've chosen to add an additional "clarification" of your own about who he was referring to. So I don't consider it any more valid than the other views expressed about that quote - it's basically the standard Boris/Trump technique of ignoring the views that conflict with your own.

 

[Meerkat]

This is of course your own interpretation, where you've chosen to add an additional "clarification" of your own about who he was referring to. So I don't consider it any more valid than the other views expressed about that quote - it's basically the standard Boris/Trump technique of ignoring the views that conflict with your own.

His quote, once the idiot interviewing him stopped grandstanding and let him finish, clarified who he was referring to.

 

[edwin_m]

His quote, once the idiot interviewing him stopped grandstanding and let him finish, clarified who he was referring to.

If you're referring to the organisations with acronyms mentioned above, there are plenty of those in the scientific and medical field. If there is more to the quote then please supply it.

In any case by supporting Brexit Gove has ignored most expert opinion. However you slice and dice it, that tends to suggest he doesn't trust experts who disagree with him.

 

[Meerkat]

If you're referring to the organisations with acronyms mentioned above, there are plenty of those in the scientific and medical field. If there is more to the quote then please supply it.

In any case by supporting Brexit Gove has ignored most expert opinion. However you slice and dice it, that tends to suggest he doesn't trust experts who disagree with him.

The context was clearly the organisations that had an interest in free trade and did economic forecasting - he was replying to a list from the interviewer.
Economic forecasting is a pretty black art, it certainly isn’t science or medicine.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He was referring to a specific group of organisations, not experts in general, but it’s easy to edit into something else because of the ridiculous grandstanding and showmanship of the interviewer.

The specific group of organisations he mentioned was 'organisations with acronyms'. That would include almost every large professional organisation, so it's not really a very specific group of organisations.

Watching the interview continue, Gove makes no attempt to qualify his remarks by saying anything along the lines that he's only talking about a few people. He never acknowledges that most experts in most fields do actually know what they are talking about - which you would reasonably expect him to do if he didn't mean to rubbish all experts. And to my knowledge, he's never since then saiid anything to qualify his remarks, or anything in defence of 'experts' in general. Instead he talks about 'a faith in the British people to make the right decision', which in the context looks to me very much like an attempt to pitch the 'British people' against 'experts'. He then alleges that the experts have a vested interest in our continued EU membership (in other words, he's using the same tactic that - for example - climate change deniers use when presented with scientific evidence: Dismiss it by making out that the experts presenting the evidence are only doing so because they have a vested interest).

Realistically, putting those remarks into context, I cannot see any way that a reasonable person could fail to conclude that Gove was trying to trash the concept of listening to expert, professional, opinion. So saying (implied: we've) 'had enough of experts' by itself does amount to a slight misquote in terms of the actual words used, but seems to me to perfectly capture Gove's intended meaning.

 

[Meerkat]

The specific group of organisations he mentioned was 'organisations with acronyms'. That would include almost every large professional organisation, so it's not really a very specific group of organisations.

Watching the interview continue, Gove makes no attempt to qualify his remarks by saying anything along the lines that he's only talking about a few people. He never acknowledges that most experts in most fields do actually know what they are talking about - which you would reasonably expect him to do if he didn't mean to rubbish all experts. And to my knowledge, he's never since then saiid anything to qualify his remarks, or anything in defence of 'experts' in general. Instead he talks about 'a faith in the British people to make the right decision', which in the context looks to me very much like an attempt to pitch the 'British people' against 'experts'. He then alleges that the experts have a vested interest in our continued EU membership (in other words, he's using the same tactic that - for example - climate change deniers use when presented with scientific evidence: Dismiss it by making out that the experts presenting the evidence are only doing so because they have a vested interest).

Realistically, putting those remarks into context, I cannot see any way that a reasonable person could fail to conclude that Gove was trying to trash the concept of listening to expert, professional, opinion. So saying (implied: we've) 'had enough of experts' by itself does amount to a slight misquote in terms of the actual words used, but seems to me to perfectly capture Gove's intended meaning.

Wow!
The interview was about Brexit, the interviewer had just listed some organisations that had been critical, and he was responding to that.
To decide this means he doesn’t believe in scientists or doctors is really rather bizarre.

 

[C J Snarzell]

A global pandemic on the scale we have seen in the last six months is enough test the skills of any country's leader.

Boris Johnson generally has done a better job than some of his predecessors would have done. Theresa May having tightened the purse strings as Home Secretary would not have sanctioned the furlough scheme to be as generous as it has, while David Cameron would have perhaps chosen the draconian lockdown measures that Spain had.

I think a situation like we are currently in, means the life span of a leader is shortened because of the huge pressure they are under 24/7 - almost like they burn out quicker.

BJ also has a six month old son who will be at reception school age when the next election comes round. An older parent, like BJ would certainly be keen to keep his off spring out of the media limelight and BJ would benefit from more privacy once he stands down as PM.

As I've said before, I would be very surprised if he stands for another election.

CJ

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Agree he will not stand in 2024. The lords and a knighthood beckon. It will be Rishi Sunak.

 

[DB]

Agree he will not stand in 2024. The lords and a knighthood beckon. It will be Rishi Sunak.

When the economy really tanks over the next year, which it almost certainly will, Sunak will be one of those regarded as responsible. He might be popular at the moment for wasting money on subsidised troughing, but this won't last.

Whoever ends up succeeding Johnson, it ain't likely to be Sunak.

 

[yorksrob]

When the economy really tanks over the next year, which it almost certainly will, Sunak will be one of those regarded as responsible. He might be popular at the moment for wasting money on subsidised troughing, but this won't last.

Whoever ends up succeeding Johnson, it ain't likely to be Sunak.

I don't know.

Sunak will be seen as having been dealt a particularly disastrous hand by fate. And rather than falling back on traditional Tory laissez-faire economics, he intervened quickly in the economy to attempt to avoid the worst outcome.

That could put him in a better position than any of the other current Torys.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I don't know.

Sunak will be seen as having been dealt a particularly disastrous hand by fate. And rather than falling back on traditional Tory laissez-faire economics, he intervened quickly in the economy to attempt to avoid the worst outcome.

That could put him in a better position than any of the other current Torys.

Is exactly my thinking.

 

[brad465]

This doesn't look good for Johnson:

Coronavirus: PM's U-turns create a 'climate of uncertainty', says Conservative

It has become "increasingly difficult" for MPs to defend government policy, a senior Tory warns.

www.bbc.co.uk

Boris Johnson's string of U-turns are unsustainable and have created a "climate of uncertainty", a senior Conservative politician has warned.

Charles Walker, deputy chair of the 1922 Committee, said it was becoming "increasingly difficult" for Tory MPs to defend government policy.

The government has made several U-turns, most recently on face masks in schools and the grading of exams.

It comes as a new poll indicates that Labour has drawn level with the Tories.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Get Brexit done and then resign on ill health grounds is what I have stated before and I will stick to it. In fact I would even bet a tenner on it.

 

[thejuggler]

After yet another terrible PMQs and a changing opinion poll position the back bench MPs won't be in 'do nothing' mode for much longer.

 

[ainsworth74]

After yet another terrible PMQs and a changing opinion poll position the back bench MPs won't be in 'do nothing' mode for much longer.

I'm somewhat struggling to grasp why he's trying to suggest Starmer supports the IRA? Via the BBC Live page for PMQs:

Sir Keir Starmer urges the PM to "take back" his comments suggesting that he supported a Labour leader - Jeremy Corbyn - who backed the IRA.

Sir Keir adds that, as a lawyer, he worked in prosecuting the organisation's members and asks Mr Johnson to "have the decency" to withdraw his remarks.

He also urges the PM to extend the furlough period.

Mr Johnson says he wants to get people back into work, rather than keep them in "suspended animation".

Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle suggests the PM withdraw his comments on the IRA. But Mr Johnson repeats that, "for long years", Sir Keir supported a Labour leader - Jeremy Corbyn - who had been supportive of the IRA.

Link

Presumably Boris misses having Corbyn on the other side of the dispatch box where his bluster and blather was more than enough to see of Corbyn week after week?

 

[thejuggler]

All Boris can argue is Starmer once sat behind Corbyn and therefore must also believe everything Corbyn believed in. It was a weak line a few months ago, it is even weaker now.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I actually quite like Boris - he is charismatic. The problem is charisma can only get you so far. After that there has to be substance - and that is where he is sorely lacking.

 

[DB]

Mr Johnson says he wants to get people back into work, rather than keep them in "suspended animation".

Which is perfectly reasonable as an approach - but the reality is that in some industries it cannot happen unless all the restrictions are dropped.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I actually quite like Boris - he is charismatic. The problem is charisma can only get you so far.

He's not charismatic, he's a narcissist. And, as you say, narcissism isn't the same thing as competence. Any of us who lived in London during Johnson's reign could have told everyone this.

It's joyous to watch Starmer forensically dismantle him each and every week. It's almost as though Starmer is the poster boy for old-fashioned small-c conservatism: from a working class background, if you get off your arse and try hard you can reach the top. And Johnson is just the poster boy for Bullingdonian Old-Etonian foppery.

I only wish Starmer had stood for leader sooner, and saved us from Corbyn and the Momentum crazies.

Johnson's doing a damn sight better than Cameron, the last incompetent Bullingdonian Old-Etonian narcissistic fop we had as PM though.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Current cabinet not just BoJo seems to be woefully lacking in talent. Rishi seems to be the best imho

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sunak gives off the appearance of competence because he's currently making it rain dollar bills like he's in a low-rent strip club.

But look beyond the headlines and you'll see another clueless fool who got where he is because he's married to the daughter of a billionaire. The National Audit Office are already muttering darkly about just how staggeringly poor value for money many of his ideas actually are. Which will just mean that Johnson will abolish the NAO, I'm sure.

Speaking of abolishing critical agencies, the Tories are again suggesting that the Electoral Commission be abolished.

The mafia-style attack on the Electoral Commission | The Spectator

Writing in the Observer this week about the use of dark money in right-wing thinktanks and the explosion of domestic and foreign propaganda on the web, I said there was an obvious need to protect British democracy. The Electoral Commission should be given police powers. Political parties should...

www.google.com

Writing in the Observer this week about the use of dark money in right-wing thinktanks and the explosion of domestic and foreign propaganda on the web, I said there was an obvious need to protect British democracy. The Electoral Commission should be given police powers. Political parties should have the same duty as banks to check they are not laundering dirty money. Thinktanks and lobbyists should be required under pain of criminal punishment to declare who is funding them. As should social media companies running political adverts.

But come now, I concluded, ‘Do you expect a government led by Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson to open up a system that gave them power?’

True to form, and as predictably as rain on a summer’s bank holiday, Cummings and Johnson are now proposing to limit what few powers our feeble Electoral Commission possesses or abolish it. The Electoral Commission investigated Vote Leave after the Brexit Referendum. Cummings and Johnson (I put Cummings first in recognition of his seniority) are running a Vote Leave rather than a Conservative government, and its defining vice is a Mafioso's desire for vengeance. Cross them and they will come for you with unrestrained force.

.

Bet you can do a lot of gerrymandering in four years

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It's joyous to watch Starmer forensically dismantle him each and every week.

Probably why he avoided Andrew Neil one on one questions in the run up to the Dec 2019 General Election. Andrew Neil would have made mincemeat out of him.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Probably why he avoided Andrew Neil one on one questions in the run up to the Dec 2019 General Election. Andrew Neil would have made mincemeat out of him.

Absolutely! You can't wing it against people like Neil, or Starmer as we're now seeing.