• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
I don't think we have a fascist government, but I do think it's essential this authoritarian drift is strongly criticised. I don't know precisely where you sit politically, but if you're a small-state conservative I'd have thought you'd agree with this.

What authoritarian drift?

This idea of the Government being 'authoritarian' seems to be one of those smears that keeps being repeated so often by politicians on the left that other people end up just assuming it's true without bothering to think about it. But, Covid lockdowns aside, almost nothing that the Government has done merits the description 'authoritarian'. (The Covid lockdowns were very authoritarian, but they were an emergency response to a specific crisis, were supported by all the main political parties, and are now in the past. Indeed, ironically, the main opposition to Covid lockdowns came from within the Conservatives, with Labour and the LibDems often arguing for even tighter lockdowns, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments actually doing that - so you could argue that in that regard the Conservatives were the least authoritarian of the parties!).

The main thing other thing that gets cited as 'authoritarian' is the Police, Crime and Sentencing bill. And it's true that bill does give more powers to the police and the Home Secretary, but the context was very clearly preventing crime and disorder, and preventing people from deliberately seeking to disrupt the lives of others. And that arguably reflects that the Conservatives have historically traditionally been the party most keen on 'law and order' issues. Nothing about that bill prevents you are I or almost anyone else from going about our normal lives, travelling and meeting whomever we wish, speaking and writing our opinions, etc. etc.

As you allude to I would say the Government are not the biggest threat regarding authoritarianism. The biggest threat is this mindset that somehow it can't happen here, which I think proves it absolutely can happen here. I don't want it to happen and don't believe we're there yet, but better we criticise signs of authoritarianism/fascism and it not happen than just sit by doing nothing and authoritarianism/fascism then happening.

But there's a huge difference between on the one hand accepting, and being alert to, the small possibility of fascism happening, and on the other hand trying to smear your opponents with being somehow 'fascist' when they quite clearly aren't.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
But there's a huge difference between on the one hand accepting, and being alert to, the small possibility of fascism happening, and on the other hand trying to smear your opponents with being somehow 'fascist' when they quite clearly aren't.
My point is not trying to smear opponents to it, but making them alert to the possibly, hence why I said criticising the signs, not so much the supporters for believing in them (such moves rarely happen at once, they are a very gradual process and it's about stopping that process before the tipping point).

I think a critical mass in this country think authoritarianism of any form can't happen here, mainly because we have to go back a very long time in our history to find examples of it, whereas in other neighbouring European countries, there are examples in living memory. A critical mass does not mean everyone, it does not have to mean a majority, nor does it have to include you specifically, but by its definition there are enough people not aware enough who run the risk of causing authoritarianism. What we should be doing is telling them what to look out for and if they see such signs, ensuring they resist in the best way possible, this should not come under the definition of smearing.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
But there's a huge difference between on the one hand accepting, and being alert to, the small possibility of fascism happening, and on the other hand trying to smear your opponents with being somehow 'fascist' when they quite clearly aren't.
Being fascists and having fascistic tendencies aren't the same thing.
 

Lost property

Member
Joined
2 Jun 2016
Messages
686
Boris, it seems, is a true romantic...what better way to win a member of the opposite sex's heart ( lady not really being applicable in the case of Carrie, who, whilst family and spouses are generally immune from criticism in the media, in her case this this is not applicable) by offering such enticements....allegedly.

 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,487
Location
Kent
Boris, it seems, is a true romantic...what better way to win a member of the opposite sex's heart ( lady not really being applicable in the case of Carrie, who, whilst family and spouses are generally immune from criticism in the media, in her case this this is not applicable) by offering such enticements....allegedly.

I think it more likely that he wanted someone from his inner inner circle. He seems reluctant to select anyone from outside his close coterie of advisors. May was similar (although she was not quite that close to them). It can go belly-up as Johnson has found with Cummings.

I sincerely hope that someone is May's team told Johnson that it was out of order. I note that Johnson's current Chief of Staff is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

As regards it being a 'grubby, discredited story'. what an encouragement to dig deeper!
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
The French electoral system is nothing to admire. In France, the neo-Communists and neo-Fascists have won 131 and 89 seats respectively out of 577 in yesterday's National Assembly election; 230 out of 577 is 40%. The result is reminiscent of elections in the early 1930s in the Weimar Republic. For example, in 1930, the Communists and Nazis won 77 and 107 seats respectively out of 577 in the Reichstag; 184 out of 577 is 32%.
I don't think the poster was particularly praising of the French system. For example NUPES got 131 seats for 31.6 of the vote share, whilst the centre-right Ensemble! got 245 for 38.6. Rough mathematics suggesting an additional 20% increase in votes leading to almost double the seats.
 

neilmc

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2011
Messages
1,028
When I have been concerned about possible fascistic tendencies in the Conservative Party, in the past that has been alleviated by the recognition that there were fundamentally decent people in ministerial office or at the very least commanding respect within the party - people like Rory Stewart, Ken Clarke, even David Cameron who I believe gained compassion and empathy through the tragic loss of his son. To "get Brexit done" Boris callously kicked the Remainers out, just like a fascist leader would, although this was initially a matter of personal conviction, and now it's political suicide for any Tory to criticise the progress of Brexit, even though you must be brain-dead not to see it's an unmitigated disaster, not least in Northern Ireland. It's delivered nothing of value and, worryingly, was sold to the British public by at least part of the Leave campaign on a blatantly racist agenda (though I know of Asians who voted for it on the grounds that if we were kicking out lots of Romanians and Poles there would be a requirement for even more immigration from the sub-continent, hence the bitter disappointment of some red wall Brexiteers that the brown faces have not diminished since Brexit.)

Anyway that's done, the point is that Boris has a compliant Cabinet even though there's a lot of backbenchers who are worried about being a one-session MP, with possibly the most incompetent crew ever to fill a front bench, I can only think of Rishi Sunak who has any credence at all. And the idea of dispatching failed asylum-seekers to Rwanda is just simply evil and compliant with of a fascist ideology that people you don't like the look of are just disposable.

So we have the POTENTIAL of an authoritarian state, and remember in the UK there is no viable party of the far right for racists and fascists to nail their flag to, which in many ways is GOOD but it means also that the Tories will continually be drawn to the right every time Nigel Farage or someone similar starts making waves and threatening to stand. I look round the Conservatives in my Council and find it hard to think that any of these people are racists and fascists, the worst they might do is bung money in the direction of dodgy businesses, but I think they genuinely want to serve the community. But with Boris Johnson I am under no illusions - the man is utterly self-serving and without morals and he inevitable attracts similar people around him. Fortunately we still have elections he can't steal, roll on Thursday!
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,289
Location
Up the creek
I have been wondering for a while whether it would be possible for Johnson (or anyone) to push through a ‘Boris (or whoever) for Eternal Leader’ act which would cancel elections. The 1911 Parliament Act allows the Lords to reject a bill to prolong Parliament, but what would happen if the Lords was packed with obedient Life Peers? As we have seen with Lord Cruddas, there is nothing to prevent the PM ignoring the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission; there also seem to have security questions concerning Lord Lebedev. Would we then be in the hands of the monarch doing a George V and refusing to sign the bill unless an election was held?
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
So we have the POTENTIAL of an authoritarian state, and remember in the UK there is no viable party of the far right for racists and fascists to nail their flag to, which in many ways is GOOD but it means also that the Tories will continually be drawn to the right every time Nigel Farage or someone similar starts making waves and threatening to stand. I look round the Conservatives in my Council and find it hard to think that any of these people are racists and fascists, the worst they might do is bung money in the direction of dodgy businesses, but I think they genuinely want to serve the community.

I agree. Our national situation is held in check by everyday decency and common sense. In general the further politicians are from the epicentre of central government power the more want they to do the right thing by their local constituents and the wider public. Council politicians are the perfect example, and I daresay even in Westminster there are hundreds of backbench MPs across all the parties who are largely aligned on the important matters in society today.

But with Boris Johnson I am under no illusions - the man is utterly self-serving and without morals and he inevitable attracts similar people around him. Fortunately we still have elections he can't steal, roll on Thursday!

Yep. Johnson is the self-serving event horizon of central government politics where that aforementioned decency perishes. There's a bigger metaphor about black holes, increasingly corrupt politicians and eroding orbits but I just can't make it work.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
I have been wondering for a while whether it would be possible for Johnson (or anyone) to push through a ‘Boris (or whoever) for Eternal Leader’ act which would cancel elections.

Wow, you definitely have a vivid imagination.

Meanwhile, back in the real Universe...
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
There are several examples of how the Johnson government has attempted to tilt the playing field in its own favour. These include proroguing Parliament for no valid reason then seeking powers to limit court "interference", and changing Metro Mayor elections to the less fair FPTP system. The rejection by the European Court of Human Rights of the Rwanda policy is probably welcomed by the government because it puts the focus on attempts to remove the UK from its jurisdiction. There is also the general trend to exploit "wedge issues" that increase the divisions in society with the aim of bolstering core support. These are all indications of movement in an authoritarian/fascistic direction, and while they are nowhere near the seriousness of those done or attempted by actual "strongman" rulers, in combination I'd say they are concerning nevertheless.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,390
I have been wondering for a while whether it would be possible for Johnson (or anyone) to push through a ‘Boris (or whoever) for Eternal Leader’ act which would cancel elections. The 1911 Parliament Act allows the Lords to reject a bill to prolong Parliament, but what would happen if the Lords was packed with obedient Life Peers? As we have seen with Lord Cruddas, there is nothing to prevent the PM ignoring the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission; there also seem to have security questions concerning Lord Lebedev. Would we then be in the hands of the monarch doing a George V and refusing to sign the bill unless an election was held?
It'd be the only time the Queen would stick her oar into politics and tell them to get lost.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,289
Location
Up the creek
It'd be the only time the Queen would stick her oar into politics and tell them to get lost.

In such circumstances I would expect the Queen to, at least, refuse to sign until the matter had been put to a referendum. I am less certain of Charles, particularly if he was newly installed as King. Would he rise to the occasion, or would he dither and be pushed into signing?
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
There are several examples of how the Johnson government has attempted to tilt the playing field in its own favour. These include proroguing Parliament for no valid reason then seeking powers to limit court "interference", and changing Metro Mayor elections to the less fair FPTP system.

Sure, there have been. I suspect that you could possibly add ID cards for voting as another example. And to be clear - those things are bad. But they aren't on anything like the scale that would justify ridiculous hyperbole like suggesting the Tories are going to cancel elections or that they are fascists or Nazis. They are basically, the same small-scale fiddling-at-the-margins that pretty much all Governments are guilty of. Compare for example, the way the 1997-2010 Labour Government created a Scottish Parliament (at a time when Scotland largely voted Labour) - which is fine and a good thing by itself: Except that they then for a long period kept Scotland having a disproportionate number of Westminster MPs compared to the population AND enacted rules that prevented (mainly Tory) English MPs from voting on Scottish issues while allowing (mainly Labour) Scottish MPs to vote on English issues. That is surely a much bigger example of political gerrymandering than anything the Conservatives under Boris Johnson have done. Yet strangely, as far as I can recall, no-one at the time tried to make out that Labour must be a fascist party or that they were going to just cancel all future elections on the strength of it.

Yet it seems that if the Conservative Government does anything slightly bad (and to be, they have done things that I think are wrong), people seem to think it's OK to (quite seriously) make ridiculous over-the-top claims as if the Government are about to cancel democracy or something. Whatever happened to having a sense of proportion?
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
I think it more likely that he wanted someone from his inner inner circle. He seems reluctant to select anyone from outside his close coterie of advisors. May was similar (although she was not quite that close to them). It can go belly-up as Johnson has found with Cummings.

I sincerely hope that someone is May's team told Johnson that it was out of order. I note that Johnson's current Chief of Staff is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

As regards it being a 'grubby, discredited story'. what an encouragement to dig deeper!
I buy the Times every day, which means the first edition where I live. I had certainly spotted and read the story on Saturday and, as luck would have it, had not consigned it yet to the pile for my parrot to defecate on (I try to get him to aim at BJ's face, if available :)).I'm not prepared to sit here copying it out (it is about 600 to 700 words long) but the author of it, Simon Walters, makes it clear it is a work of investigation by the Times newspaper, and not just a rehash of allegations made by Lord Ashcroft in his book First Lady, which has faced no legal action. Specifically, the newspaper identified four 'allies' of Johnson who knew everything and contacted them. Three of them spoke in return for anonymity: two of these were given high ministerial jobs when Johnson became P.M.! Personally, I have no doubt of the veracity of the story, which is why such efforts were made to discredit it.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
I have been wondering for a while whether it would be possible for Johnson (or anyone) to push through a ‘Boris (or whoever) for Eternal Leader’ act which would cancel elections. The 1911 Parliament Act allows the Lords to reject a bill to prolong Parliament, but what would happen if the Lords was packed with obedient Life Peers? As we have seen with Lord Cruddas, there is nothing to prevent the PM ignoring the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission; there also seem to have security questions concerning Lord Lebedev. Would we then be in the hands of the monarch doing a George V and refusing to sign the bill unless an election was held?
I don't see it happening before the next election, if at all, particularly as the courts would have something to say about that. Also, Johnson's current standing would make such a move very well publicised and criticised, as this would be seen as a desperate attempt to solidify himself, and also may run the risk of some form of coup d'etat if there's no other way to remove him. Were he on stronger terms personally then maybe he'd give it a go if he wins the next election, but's it's also touch and go whether or not he'd be leading the party in it, and for that matter retaining his now vulnerable seat.

On the other side of the pond however, I think Trump was very keen on some form of "eternal leader act", there was talk he'd abolish the term limit at the very least had he won the 2020 election, and we saw how desperate he was to smear and challenge his loss, culminating in what was likened to a coup on January 6th last year. There are plenty of so-called populists who haven't gone that far, including Morrison in Australia and Le Pen in France.

Boris, it seems, is a true romantic...what better way to win a member of the opposite sex's heart ( lady not really being applicable in the case of Carrie, who, whilst family and spouses are generally immune from criticism in the media, in her case this this is not applicable) by offering such enticements....allegedly.

BBC also reporting this story:


Downing Street has confirmed that it spoke to a newspaper before it dropped a story involving the prime minister's wife, Carrie Johnson.
The Times printed a report on Saturday saying Mrs Johnson had been offered the role of chief-of-staff to Boris Johnson while he was foreign secretary, at a time when they were in a relationship.
But the item was removed from later editions and not published online.
No 10 said it had spoken to the Times before and after the story came out.
The prime minister's spokesman said it had been made clear by his political colleagues in Downing Street - and by Mrs Johnson's spokesperson - that the claim was "not true".
But a government source told the BBC the conversation following publication had not included mention of legal action.

Mr Johnson, who became prime minister in 2019, served as foreign secretary from 2016 to 2018, when he resigned in protest at then Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit stance.
Two sources told the BBC that Mr Johnson had floated the idea with members of his team that his now-wife could be employed as his chief-of-staff when he was foreign secretary - and said multiple aides had advised him against it.
The Times declined to comment on why it had removed its story regarding Mr and Mrs Johnson during his time at the Foreign Office.
The prime minister's spokesman said Mr Johnson had not spoken personally to deputy editor Tony Gallagher asking for it to be removed.
The journalist who wrote the Times story, Simon Walters, told the New European website that he stood by it "100%".
"I was in lengthy and detailed communication with No 10 at a high level, [Mr Johnson's press secretary] Ben Gascoigne and Mrs Johnson's spokeswoman for up to 48 hours before the [Times] went to press," he said.
"At no point did any of them offer an on-the-record denial of any element of the story."
"Nor have any of these three offered an on-the-record denial to me since," Mr Walters added. "No 10 and Mr Gascoigne did not deny it off-the-record [meaning to be reported but not directly attributed to an individual] either."
Mr Johnson married Carrie Johnson - née Carrie Symonds - in May last year and they have two children together.
Mrs Johnson is a former head of communications for the Conservative Party.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
And to be clear - those things are bad. But they aren't on anything like the scale that would justify ridiculous hyperbole like suggesting the Tories are going to cancel elections or that they are fascists or Nazis.
As I keep reminding you - nobody notices the salami is smaller after the first slice.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
As I keep reminding you - nobody notices the salami is smaller after the first slice.

And as I keep reminding you - that is a strawman argument if no-one is proposing to remove more than the first slice.

And more seriously, your salami argument basically amounts to an argument that the Government should never do anything at all: Because pretty much anything that any Government might do, could, theoretically become heinously bad if you extrapolated it to ridiculous levels..
  • Thinking of increasing the income tax rate by 1%? That's awful... think of how bad it'd be if that lead to the Government eventually increasing tax to 100%!
  • New law to make it easier to close poorly used railway stations like Teeside Airport? Appalling! We must resist it in case the Government uses this law to close down the entire railway network!
  • Plan to convert some lanes of roads to cycleways? Terrible! That's probably going to end up with the Government abolishing cars and converting every single road in the country into a cycleway!
Compare with something like...
  • Government proposes photo ID for voting? OH MY GOD! That's going to end up with the Government abolishing elections!
(Which seems to be the logic of some of the hyperbole on this thread)
 
Last edited:

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
1,727
And as I keep reminding you - that is a strawman argument if no-one is proposing to remove more than the first slice.

And more seriously, your salami argument basically amounts to an argument that the Government should never do anything at all: Because pretty much anything that any Government might do, could, theoretically become heinously bad if you extrapolated it to ridiculous levels..
  • Thinking of increasing the income tax rate by 1%? That's awful... think of how bad it'd be if that lead to the Government eventually increasing tax to 100%!
  • New law to make it easier to close poorly used railway stations like Teeside Airport? Appalling! We must resist it in case the Government uses this law to close down the entire railway network!
  • Plan to convert some lanes of roads to cycleways? Terrible! That's probably going to end up with the Government abolishing cars and converting every single road in the country into a cycleway!
Compare with something like...
  • Government proposes photo ID for voting? OH MY GOD! That's going to end up with the Government abolishing elections!
(Which seems to be the logic of some of the hyperbole on this thread)
Its something to do with Brexit going from "we'll leave, but obviously stay in the single market" in 2016 to "prorogue Parliament to force a no deal brexit", then "an oven ready deal", to the current mess.

Last week alone, the government was talking about break the Northern Ireland agreement, to protect the sanctity of the Good Friday Agreement, leave the EHCR over Rwanda (which breaks the Good Friday Agreement), and then break WTO rules to help out party donors and short term political gain.

Why would a business invest in a country where policies come and go on a whim, where agreements are negotiated, and then discarded?

This government's credibility account has been overdrawn for a long time, its now gone over the limit, and are still busy writing cheques that will bounce.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
And as I keep reminding you - that is a strawman argument if no-one is proposing to remove more than the first slice.

And more seriously, your salami argument basically amounts to an argument that the Government should never do anything at all: Because pretty much anything that any Government might do, could, theoretically become heinously bad if you extrapolated it to ridiculous levels..
  • Thinking of increasing the income tax rate by 1%? That's awful... think of how bad it'd be if that lead to the Government eventually increasing tax to 100%!
  • New law to make it easier to close poorly used railway stations like Teeside Airport? Appalling! We must resist it in case the Government uses this law to close down the entire railway network!
  • Plan to convert some lanes of roads to cycleways? Terrible! That's probably going to end up with the Government abolishing cars and converting every single road in the country into a cycleway!
Compare with something like...
  • Government proposes photo ID for voting? OH MY GOD! That's going to end up with the Government abolishing elections!
(Which seems to be the logic of some of the hyperbole on this thread)

There's always a need for checks and balances with any proposal.

In the case of the first few:
- any party increasing the tax rate for a significant number of people would mean that you'd start to see people vote for the party which wasn't going to increase the tax rate or even reduce it
- there would be calls, including from within the party in charge, to provide limits within the legislation to ensure that such stations were the only targets - this would, at the very least, require public consultation and that it couldn't be used to just shut stations in a whim
- there's always been power for highway authorities to divide the highway up for different road users (chiefly for pedestrians) as they see fit, a lot of what's been happening of late is that there's been funding to make changes - the thing that ensures that councils don't go the whole way is that they also need to collect waste so roads could never be 100% cycle lanes

Now with the needing to have ID to vote, there's not really been the argument put forwards as to why it would be useful, nor has their been any proposal for a way to allow those with no driving license or passport to be able to take part (both of which are fairly costly to obtain).

Given that elections are typically held in May it's fairly reasonable to say that if you don't have photo ID you could bring your Council Tax Bill (issued about March) to prove your address. That would limit voter fraud quite significantly without requiring much from individuals.

Of course that all assumes that there's a significant level of voter fraud to start with, which very few think that there is.

Of course the other thing to consider is who is behind such changes. Going back to the first list:

- Labour would get a lot more stock for increasing taxes than the Tories
- Tories would get more stock than Labour for closing stations
- the Greens would get more stick for building cycle lanes
- the Tories get more stick than anyone else for voter reforms (given what we have seen happen in the US when they've done it, where it means that for many is harder to vote than for others)

Do we need changes to protect against voter fraud? Possibly, however the case hasn't been made and jumping to photo ID without trying other options first is arguably a too bigger first step.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,487
Location
Kent
In such circumstances I would expect the Queen to, at least, refuse to sign until the matter had been put to a referendum. I am less certain of Charles, particularly if he was newly installed as King. Would he rise to the occasion, or would he dither and be pushed into signing?
The Queen definitely wouldn't sign. I am pretty certain that neither Charles nor William would either, they have grown up as members of 'The Firm', they will have learnt their role from both the Queen and her husband, who didn't live through WWII and its aftermath not to know the meaning of service. I think that William would offer considerable support to Charles in not doing so, Having heard his views on his uncle and brother and their role, I have little doubt about his moral compass. I'm less certain about George (but I will be long gone by then, by which time 'Boris Johnson' will merely be the answer to quiz questions). There is a book to be written about this, but it should be filed in 'Fiction'.

I buy the Times every day, which means the first edition where I live. I had certainly spotted and read the story on Saturday and, as luck would have it, had not consigned it yet to the pile for my parrot to defecate on (I try to get him to aim at BJ's face, if available :)).I'm not prepared to sit here copying it out (it is about 600 to 700 words long) but the author of it, Simon Walters, makes it clear it is a work of investigation by the Times newspaper, and not just a rehash of allegations made by Lord Ashcroft in his book First Lady, which has faced no legal action. Specifically, the newspaper identified four 'allies' of Johnson who knew everything and contacted them. Three of them spoke in return for anonymity: two of these were given high ministerial jobs when Johnson became P.M.! Personally, I have no doubt of the veracity of the story, which is why such efforts were made to discredit it.
Thanks for that*. It does now appear to have some traction. It is on the front page of the Telegraph (continued inside, behind a pay wall) suggesting that Lord Geidt thinks his successor ought to investigate it (so no appointment any time soon).
From the BBC story
Two sources told the BBC that Mr Johnson had floated the idea with members of his team that his now-wife could be employed as his chief-of-staff when he was foreign secretary - and said multiple aides had advised him against it.

The Times declined to comment on why it had removed its story regarding Mr and Mrs Johnson during his time at the Foreign Office.

The prime minister's spokesman said Mr Johnson had not spoken personally to deputy editor Tony Gallagher asking for it to be removed.
Carefully chosen words.

I bet that is just what his former wife and children wanted to read. But he wouldn't have thought about them. Whoever said of him "You don't care for anything because you're spoilt" wasn't wrong.

* - I do like the parrot story. One reason I knew that my mother was in control of her faculties (and sight) until the end is that she would sneer and turn her nose up whenever Johnson appeared on the screen.

BBC quote: - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61869650
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
Its something to do with Brexit going from "we'll leave, but obviously stay in the single market" in 2016 to "prorogue Parliament to force a no deal brexit", then "an oven ready deal", to the current mess.
This is how this government is unique in my lifetime, and quite possibly modern British history.

In implementing the self-defeating nonsense that is Hard Brexit, it has been the only government in my lifetime to make radical changes purely for self-interest. And that's what, to my mind, Hard Brexit was all about. It had struggled to win the more socially-conservative seats in certain parts of the country but recognised that in such seats there were a relatively large number of voters who had "issues" with immigration. So it implemented Hard Brexit to attempt to (successfully as it happens, at least for now) win those seats by winning over the Faragists.

I really don't believe that Boris Johnson genuinely thinks Brexit is a good idea. But he rightly believed that it was a device to win him seats.

Contrast that to Thatcher (who I am not remotely a fan of, BTW). For all her faults I do believe that she genuinely believed that her ideology was right for the country. I don't believe that most of the cabinet (aside from ideologues such as Patel and Raab) genuinely believe Brexit is best for the UK. I suspect the chickens will come home to roost in the next election as by then people will wake up to the fact that Brexit has made their lives worse, not better.

Hard Brexit was the moment for me that the government lost all credibility, though the other issues, such as the Policing Bill (and its clampdowns on certin forms of protest) and the Rwanda nonsense are the poison icing on the cake.

While this government are not "fascist" they do have a strong tendency to completely ignore views that are at odds with their own direction, and keep in power those who align with it even if wrongdoing occurs. And making Mogg "Minister for Brexit Opportunities" smacks to me of, well, not fascism, but maybe just a little bit of nationalist "communist" (?) authoritarian states if anything.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,268
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I really don't believe that Boris Johnson genuinely thinks Brexit is a good idea. But he rightly believed that it was a device to win him seats.
The simple answer is that it was the British electorate who voted in the said referendum whose votes decided the issue. Though looking at exterior exhortations, how many times would you have seen both the "Johnson" brexiteers and the RMT union both stating their preferences for "leave".
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
The simple answer is that it was the British electorate who voted in the said referendum whose votes decided the issue.
The referendum result was in favour of Brexit, it was the government that determined the nature of that Brexit.

Or did I miss when the British electorate negotiated the "oven-ready" deal?
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
The simple answer is that it was the British electorate who voted in the said referendum whose votes decided the issue. Though looking at exterior exhortations, how many times would you have seen both the "Johnson" brexiteers and the RMT union both stating their preferences for "leave".

I don't want to get into this argument again on this thread (though feel free to continue on the Brexit thread) but you don't make radical changes based on the whims of 37% of people on some random day in 2016, which was scarcely the most sane year in history (look at the USA, for instance). The referendum was badly designed and should have required substantial majority. If 37% of people voted to decriminalise cocaine possession, for example (with 34% voting against and the rest not voting), should the government blindly implement it without thinking through the consequences? One of the roles of government, in my view, is to sanity-check the opinions of substantial sections of the electorate rather than blindly implementing them. But as I said this thread is not the place to discuss this controversy. Suffice to say, I believe the main motivation for Hard Brexit was power, and to win seats for the Tories in parts of the country that they hadn't touched for generations.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,025
Location
SE London
I don't want to get into this argument again on this thread (though feel free to continue on the Brexit thread) but you don't make radical changes based on the whims of 37% of people on some random day in 2016, which was scarcely the most sane year in history (look at the USA, for instance). The referendum was badly designed and should have required substantial majority. If 37% of people voted to decriminalise cocaine possession, for example (with 34% voting against and the rest not voting), should the government blindly implement it without thinking through the consequences?

I agree that the referendum was badly designed. But that was the decision of David Cameron et al, not of Boris Johnson. Once the referendum had taken place on those (badly designed) terms and the people had voted on the basis of those terms (We stay in or out according to 50%+1 on the referendum result) then Government had little choice but to take the UK out of the EU: Anything else would have been widely (and correctly) seen by most of the population as an affront to democracy. (Same as for the Scottish referendum: Very badly designed, but the people voted on the basis of that design and you therefore have to accept the result). You really can't sensibly blame the current Government for that (although you might reasonably disagree with the particular Brexit agreement they negotiated).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top