[Closed] Boris Johnson

Having read through the article I would say it's an interesting and though provoking piece. referencing a lot of issues that Britain is facing today.

Yay 1st post....

I aim to please...

I aim to please...

Usually fun mate but mindless commentary like that usually kills what is supposed to be a sensible thread. Although I'd be interested to hear where you think our country would be right now if Maggie hadn't stepped in? Don't want to get of track though, like or loath her Maggie was the past. Let's talk about Boris.

Not very populist his speech, but tackled a few taboo things we as a society need to address. We're not all equal, deal with it, and there is a big difference between equality of opportunity and equality of living standards. The former we should be striving for, although ironically the politicians seem to be going the other way trying to achieve the latter, student fees being a good example.

Politics is in a right mess at the moment, say anything to be considered vaguely unpalatable regarding the realities of life and you'll find yourself personally villified, it's lazy politics to attack the person rather than counter the argument.

Usually fun mate but mindless commentary like that usually kills what is supposed to be a sensible thread.

A sensible thread about Boris? Now that [i]is[/i] a mindless proposition.

Don't want to get of track though, like or loath her Maggie was the past.

She was, however, the first topic of his speech. And dissent against her, I note, was carelessly wafted away with the back of his hand, whilst trotting out the same old tosh about the BBC being leftist propaganda. I hope it gets better as you've now committed me to take the time to read all of it.

EDIT: Half way now. It's not getting better. I'll admit he is quite a good fiction writer, though.

EDIT2: It had a shimmer of hope at about 2/3rds, but we're back to it again now. Perhaps he should suggest that we're far more interested in the tax the top 1% [u]evade[/u], rather than the tiny percentage of their income that they pay as tax

And run out of time for edits after wasting 20 minutes of my life reading that. My verdict: fallacy at best, dangerous jingoistic revisionism at its worst.

My first post was rather more succinct, and would have saved both me the time in reading the article and writing my later posts, and you the time reading said subsequent posts.

Tory tells Tory's what they want to here (very eloquently)
And it's very obviously Boris putting his flag in the sand for the leadership contest

Zokes. Bet your fun to be around. Divorced yet?

Divorced yet?

No. You?

Back in your hole, troll.

Well I for one hope he makes it to PM. Make a change from the DaveEdNick boredom show. Given that some folk on here are just not getting their daily outrage quota, PM Boris would give them what they crave.

Interesting article from the Torygraph.

Well I for one hope he makes it to PM.

Yes, just what we need, a compulsive elitist clown in charge. That will definitely improve things 🙄

It's been done already. STW's cornflakes rose up and discussed here:

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/boris-johnsons-latest-speach

As Boris would probably say, keep up at the back. As in any history exam, note who was talking, when and to what audience etc. (ie, BJ, Maggie lecture, CPS) and it all becomes quite clear.

I wouldn't vote for him, but I'd prefer him as PM to Cameron. I think regarding him as a buffoon as many seem to do is a gross underestimate of the man.

I like his bouts of straightforwardness. As a Tory he obviously does not really believe in democracy - see the reference to "ruling classes", so he's unlikely to dispose of the House of Lords.

This bit:

...and we ended up so relatively weakened that the ruling classes succumbed to a deep spiritual morosity that bordered on self-loathing...

.....and it all becomes quite clear.

It was all quite clear before he said all of that. There's nothing new there.

You strike me as bitter. The older you get the more mellow you should aim to be fella.

You strike me as bitter.

Nope.

The older you get the more mellow you should aim to be fella.

Which is why I cheerily couldn't give two hoots what you think of someone you've never met.

According to last saturday's edition, the Independent's 'mole' (their word for him/her) inside Westminster Conservatives says Theresa May for next Conservative leader. I thought she was giving up... 😕

That has to be a joke, May is the Tory equivalent of Prescott. Totally incapable of implementing anything effectively. With her track record of misinformation and misfiring, how could anyone consider her a leader? Apart from Russell and Bromley????

I think regarding him as a buffoon as many seem to do is a gross underestimate of the man.

That has to be a joke

Apart from Russell and Bromley????

😆 😀

Same article (well it was one of those 'our man in westinster political comment' things) also said Cameron was more popular/less unpopular with he public than the party itself yet the Westminster conservatives are already sharpening their knives. Journalists, eh? 😕

He's clearly not stupid. It's depressing that some people want him as PM though - I can only assume because they think he's funny. I can't imagine anyone sane really thinks this government isn't right wing enough and is too egalitarian. Do they?

Theresa May would be hilarious as Tory leader but is surely unelectable? It would be terrifying if she became PM.

I feel for the wealthy and those born into privilege - in constant need of reassurance from the likes of Boris that come the leadership revolution, they'll still be fine and dandy while the thick poor bimble around aimlessly. It must be tough at the top that it leads to such insecurity.

"Yes, just what we need, a compulsive elitist clown in charge. That will definitely improve things"

Who said anything about improve things? Just think he'd be great as PM on many levels. Humorless perpetual moaners would have real reason for there existence rather than just thieve the breath of others. The rest of us may see it as a massive joke played on each other.

Who said anything about improve things? Just think he'd be great as PM on many levels. Humorless perpetual moaners would have real reason for there existence rather than just thieve the breath of others. The rest of us may see it as a massive joke played on each other.

It's like right wingers' bullshit bingo today. I've got a diagonal line from that paragraph alone. 🙂

Have just had a quick read of his interview on LBC this morning. He seems to be disavowing/backtracking/adding caveats to most main points of his speech.

What I find odd about him is every now and again he'll say/do something and people will say 'look, he's not a total buffoon'. But using this speech as an example I think it just illustrates EXACTLY the kind of buffoon he is - almost every main point of it is just lazy, ill thought-out reactionary guff that crumbles under even the most basic scrutiny. He is, however, very good at diverting attention from any real issues at hand (see his recent outbursts on cycling for a masterclass in this).

Who said anything about improve things?

That is the aspirational aim of someone taking the bother to vote, isn't it?

[i]"whilst trotting out the same old tosh about the BBC being leftist propaganda."[/i]

To be fair even the BBC Trust has formally recognised via research that it commissioned that the political balance in news / current affairs programming is not balanced and overly sympathetic to the left.

And the last but one BBC Director General spoke of a "massive left wing bias at the BBC"

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview

The last Head of News has also said the same:

http://www.****/news/article-2492363/BBC-big-left-wing-ignored-critics-immigration-Brussels-head-news-admits.html

and MPs have made the same point again recently:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10358533/BBC-accused-of-becoming-Ed-Milibands-mouthpiece.html

So if the BBC Trust, The last Director General, The last head of news and MPs all agree the BBC is biased is this really "[i]the same old tosh?[/i]"

So if the BBC Trust, The last Director General, The last head of news and MPs all agree the BBC is biased is this really "the same old tosh?"

To a large extent, that depends on how far skewed to the right their perception of the centre is. Certainly your last source should be discredited on that basis alone.

"Wah wah waaaaaaaaaah. 🙁 "

"BBC isn't fair to us" whinge the right-wingers. "It's not like we haven't cornered the printed media or anything like that..."

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh"

Cry me a ****ing river.

So if the BBC Trust, The last Director General, The last head of news and MPs all agree the BBC is biased is this really "the same old tosh?"

The current chief political editor at the BBC is a Tory isn't he? And wow, some Tory MPs say the BBC is biased so it must be true.

The BBC also get accused of bias from those on the left - eg a complete failure to properly report on the latest NHS reforms. Some accuse it of being pro-Israel, others claim it's anti-Semitic and massively biased against Israel. 😕

Even if it is true don't we need something to counter the vile, misleading right wing propaganda that most of the rest of the (oligarch-owned) media churns out?

if they were that left wing theyd stop putting that **** farrage on question time

if they were that left wing theyd stop putting that **** farrage on question time

To be fair, he's so right wing he's pretty much gone full circle

Boris says we got it all wrong, apparently...

See any slack to be cut here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25197926

See any slack to be cut here?

Start with the Mayor of London's office, and work from there?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/03/boris-johnson-fails-live-iq-test

What he said is not Thatcherite at all. Thatcherism was about social inclusion, own your own home, start your own business, self improvement etc. Thatcher was not from the public school elite that seems to have grasped power in the country (regardless of party).

That's not to say she didn't have an overall deleterious effect on the country, but she would not approve of today's political elite. Boris wouldn't have stood a chance of getting in her cabinet.

There's not point reading that speech. They're not his ideas. He's simply saying what he's being told to say by tory apparatchiks and corporate lobbyists. His only interest in politics is personal promotion. His complete lack of conviction or knowledge on pretty much any issue, and his affable and likeable character make him the perfect candidate for the corporate sponsored elite, and much like Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, if he ever makes it to the top, it'll be a complete disaster for all but a tiny few at the top of society.

See he's not even got the job yet and the moaners are out in force. There's nowt turns folk of politics quicker than the perpetual moaners who do nothing. Are you sure that you do not want him to stand? After all if he's that bad no one will vote him..........oops! Them there Londoners did twice.

Bring on Boris I say, lets have him as PM. What a laugh everything will be. 😆

Edit: poor spelling and missed words, I'm in the 16% you see. I do hope one of those 2% of cornflakes at the top of the packet gives me a helping hand.

Nor can I easily tell you what it will be like for us suddenly to be the biggest and most economically powerful country in Europe

Given the general atmosphere in the UK I suspect that vision is quite compelling for an awful lot of people of both the left and the right... and more so than anything either Dave or Ed have come up with in the last five years...

Whether you like/approve of him or not, the UK needs a visionary leader that promises us a better future... and for most people 'wealthier than I am now' = 'better'

Them Londoners did twice.

Exactly. That's why he's the perfect candidate for those he serves. I'm always amazed at the ability of the right to convince millions of otherwise sensible and intelligent people to vote against their own interests.

Boris won't have the same support outside of The Republic of London as he enjoys in it. In what he calls "the regions", i.e The UK, we're not so desensitized to the crippling economic disparity that exists there. So public school boys have to work a lot harder to win a vote.

He's entertaining, but running the country? Oh f*ck no.

So what you are saying is that he could win an election if he stood as conservative party leader? Scary.

Thatcherism was about social inclusion

there's no other way to put this............

have you gone mental ?

Boris won't have the same support outside of The Republic of London as he enjoys in it.

trailmonkey - Member
Thatcherism was about social inclusion
there's no other way to put this............

have you gone mental ?

Not [i]completely[/i]. The effect of Thatcherism was complete social breakdown, no argument there. But the ideas she came in on were all about helping ordinary people into a better standard of living (rather than the privileged few).

TM - watch Durkin's C4 documentary on Thatcher. An interesting argument that she was in fact, "a working class revolutionary" (slight hyperbole?) and that she believed capitalism was in the interests of ordinary people, not the toffs. He claims that she believed that the needs and aspirations of ordinary working people should be better reflected in British politics. He quoted her writing:

“in the eyes of the public, Conservatives represent the prejudices and selfish interests of the moneyed classes”

...and argued that, it was Thatcher’s belief that working class people were enslaved by the post-war consensus – trapping them in state run communities working for state owned industries – that led to her conviction that only a radical shake up of the country’s economic framework could deliver real freedom to the British people. Or, as Sir Bernard Ingham put it:

“She was in the business of liberation – liberation of the proletariat.”

Probably not the consensus view, at least not on here, but an Interetsting argument nonetheless!

Durkin?

[i]Martin[/i] Durkin?

so it's utter 80ll0cks then.

Not completely. The effect of Thatcherism was complete social breakdown, no argument there. But the ideas she came in on were all about helping ordinary people into a better standard of living (rather than the privileged few).

if you believe that tosh , then you must be expecting a big man in a red suit comin down yer chimney...

Is that the same Durkin who fabricated a load of statistics and willingly misrepresented 'research' sponsored by oil and coal companies in a C4 documentary to de-bunk climate change?

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle[/url]

rudebwoy - Member
Not completely. The effect of Thatcherism was complete social breakdown, no argument there. But the ideas she came in on were all about helping ordinary people into a better standard of living (rather than the privileged few).
if you believe that tosh , then you must be expecting a big man in a red suit comin down yer chimney...

Well I didn't read it in a book, I lived through it and made my own observations.

Thatcherism was about social inclusion

Are you talking about 'trickle-down capitalism'?

[img] [/img]

dazh - Member
Are you talking about 'trickle-down capitalism'?

No, thats a myth that doesn't work.

May have been the same guy, not sure tbh. But the argument is interesting at the very least. I have some sympathy with it but have always argued that Thatcher delivered much less than either her critics or her supporters argue, in fact the whole concept of Thatcherism was largely a myth on both aides. * The fact that she broke a number of barriers in the Tory party was arguably one reason why they (as normal) turned against her in the end. To be succeeded by another non-typical Tory leader. How many times has that heppendd before or since?

* perhaps this is why when delivering the annual MrsT lecture to a RW think tank that bOris had to resort to his usual rhetorical tricks!!!

No, thats a myth that doesn't work.

Refrigerator ownership in rural China increased from 14% to 45% over the period 2001-2010

And you're claiming that trickle down capitalism doesn't work?

The Chinese government could easily afford to supply every single household with a fridge. How is it a success that only 45% of people are using one?

The Chinese government could easily afford to supply every single household with a fridge

Then under the great socialist empire where everyone is equal, why didn't they? Why is it only happening since the evil capitalist reforms

Money brought into china from manufacturing western goods has led to a real terms 1000% increase in the per capita income of rural chinese residents since the start of economic reforms in 1978 (OECD Figures)

Then under the great socialist empire where everyone is equal, why didn't they?

Maybe because, just like in soviet Russia, the 'great socialist empire' was anything but. The chinese and soviet revolutions may have been inspired by socialism, but what they turned into was a far cry from what Marx and Engels envisioned.

ninfan - Member
Refrigerator ownership in rural China increased from 14% to 45% over the period 2001-2010

And you're claiming that trickle down capitalism doesn't work?

That's a transition from socialism to capitalism. Not the same as allowing the rich to get richer in an already capitalist country in the hope the poor will get less poor.

We've tried this and it manifestly has not happened.

And you're claiming that trickle down capitalism doesn't work?

If it works, why do we have a widening gap between rich and poor?

We've tried this and it manifestly has not happened.

You're saying that poverty in the UK in 2013 resembles poverty in the UK in the 1930's?

or even the 1970's?

I reckon that being in poverty in the UK today does not even begin to broach the level of deprivation that we saw in the past - in your words, the poor have got less poor.

Do you really want to stick to the argument that the poor in this capitalist country are not better off than they used to be?

But the ideas she came in on were all about helping ordinary people into a better standard of living (rather than the privileged few).

And you think this was achieved by creating mass unemployment, eroding union power, increasing poverty, lowering wages, cutting public services............ ? I could go on but I think you get the gist.

As confirmed an advocate of Milton Friedman as she was, it is ludicrous to build an argument claiming that her ideals were anything other than about lining the pockets of the privileged few. If you really want to think about it, tell me who the beneficiaries of the utilities sell offs were, certainly not 'Sid' (maybe no-one told him), most certainly the huge multi nationals that now own them.

she was in fact, "a working class revolutionary"

Now this I agree with 100% If more people realised how revolutionary she was and how as a result the world has changed under their noses while they're so busy consuming, the world would be a better place.

If it works, why do we have a widening gap between rich and poor?

It would have happened with Maggie or not.

Now the same thing is happening to the middle classes. Office jobs are being replaced by IT systems. Doctors and lawyers are next. The 'working' class is about to grow. It's hard to see this as a good thing for most of us.

It doesn't matter who is in charge. It's happening.

The trickle down will be just that. A trickle.

I note that the central question posed by ninfan has been avoided in favour of some straw-manisms.

The working class. Better off now than in the 1930's?

Discuss.

Do you really want to stick to the argument that the poor in this capitalist country are not better off than they used to be?

Not sure who you think the 'poor' are in this country, but going on the numbers of homeless and people using foodbanks and soup kitchens I'd say they there are plenty people in this country who are just as poor as the poor were in the 70s and earlier.

And just how poor do they have to be before we stop congratulating ourselves on a job well done and pretending that there's no problem?

[img] [/img]

Of course the working class are better off 100 years later, unions in particular have done amazing things to improve working conditions, the nhs has helped raise life expectancy and countless other improvements

but seeing the way that our current government are driving people to food bank use, Im not sure that things are so rosey

and shirley comparing inequality woudl be a better measure

[img] [/img]

heres another depressing one
Chart 2: How many times more likely the worse-off tenth are likely to die under the age of 65 than the best-off tenth in Britain, 1921-2007, by area. (Source: Dorling, 2013)
[img] [/img]

and shirley comparing inequality woudl be a better measure

Why?

The question is whether the poor are, in real terms, poorer, not whether the rich have got richer.

elitist clown

And you're point is? What if a Tory slagged off the Labour contender for being a socialist bore? Just because his family was rich and he's got a personality doesn't follow that he's not good at politics.

difference between equality of opportunity and equality of living

+1

And just how poor do they have to be before we stop congratulating ourselves on a job well done and pretending that there's no problem?

<daily mail> When they're complaining that a £500/week cap on benifits is going to hit them in the pocket? </daily mail mode>

Shouldn't Ernie be on this thread by now? 😉

ninfan - Member
The question is whether the poor are, in real terms, poorer, not whether the rich have got richer.

I thought the discussion was about whether maggies policies had ended inequality as Boris claimed

and shirley comparing inequality woudl be a better measure

The question is whether the poor are, in real terms, poorer, not whether the rich have got richer.

+1, you could see a change in inequality if the rich got richer and the poor were better off, but not by as much. But everyone's better off than they were.

It's very easy to deamonise "the top 1%" or "the top 10%", but it seems unfair to overtly deamonise them for being harder working or luckier depending on where you see them.

ninfan - Member

You're saying that poverty in the UK in 2013 resembles poverty in the UK in the 1930's?

or even the 1970's?

I reckon that being in poverty in the UK today does not even begin to broach the level of deprivation that we saw in the past - in your words, the poor have got less poor.

Do you really want to stick to the argument that the poor in this capitalist country are not better off than they used to be?

Yes the poor now are much worse of than the 70's - and I remember being poor in the 70's.

I spoke to someone the other day spent the evening sat in darkness because they had no money for a leccy card, with no food, no prospect of work, no money for his kids xmas pressies and what income he got was via illegal means. And he's one of many doing the same thing or already in prison - where the population per capita is much higher than in any decade you mentioned and has ballooned in the last 30 years.

Do you want to tell him how much better off he is because of our captains of industry? I f*cking don't.

Just dipped into this thread, but this:

I spoke to someone the other day spent the evening sat in darkness because they had no money for a leccy card, with no food, no prospect of work, no money for his kids xmas pressies and what income he got was via illegal means. And he's one of many doing the same thing or already in prison

should not be happening, in this country, in the 21st century, when there is such massive wealth, that is not being taxed or shared.

trailmonkey - Member

And you think this was achieved by creating mass unemployment, eroding union power, increasing poverty, lowering wages, cutting public services............ ? I could go on but I think you get the gist.

I'm pretty sure I said several posts ago that she did not achieve equality. I said the policies she came in on, voted for by many working class families, where of an ant-elite/get of your arse and make something of yourself nature.

You do remember the landslide elections she won? She was very, very popular until she went batshit and took up ruining communities for a hobby.

I'm not a thatcher apologist. I'm not even a tory. I do think she was on to something with her early political ideology and we could use some of it now.

I do think she was on to something with her early political ideology and we could use some of it now.

Delusional.

Everything that woman did has not just come back to bite us on the a*se, but has torn us all a whole new a*sehole.

I think the difference was that in the 70s rich people were spending the evening sitting in darkness (boris talks about it in his speech) therefore it mustve been a terrible time

Im sure if he spent time away from his elitist bubble
hed be able to see plenty of places in britain that he so vividly conjured up in his speech

I remember what it was like and how this country was seen. Our food was boiled and our teeth were awful and our cars wouldn’t work and our politicians were so hopeless that they couldn’t even keep the lights on ----I remember how deserted London seemed, as people fled to Essex or elsewhere, and the stringy grass and the spangles wrappers and the bleached white dog turds in the park, and the gust of Watneys pale ale from the scuzzy pubs.

You do remember the landslide elections she won? She was very, very popular until she went batshit and took up ruining communities for a hobby.

She would have been a single term PM, but for the Falklands war, there is nothing like a bit of sabre rattling warmongering disguised as patriotism to win votes.

The only good thing I can possibly think of about Thatcher is that whilst she created the underclass through the destruction of the industries and communities in which the working class were employed and lived, she at least allowed them to claim benefits to house and feed themselves. The current lot are now so removed from reality they think that being poor is a lifestyle choice, and so remove any benefits they once received, forcing them to either live on the streets or rely on charity in the form of foodbanks etc. In fact it's even worse than that, many who have jobs are using food banks or even worse are resorting to pay-day loan-sharks to feed their kids. Did that sort of thing exist in the 70s?

MSP - Member
She would have been a single term PM, but for the Falklands war, there is nothing like a bit of sabre rattling warmongering disguised as patriotism to win votes.

That helped her majority no doubt, but do you remember labour in the early 80's? Pretty much anyone without two heads could have won against Foot!