BoJo

[Clitheroekid]

I wasn't sure where to put this, as it's not really suitable for the Current Affairs board, but it's an article about BoJo, and I really enjoyed it, so this seems as good a place to share it as any.

It's always interesting to get a perspective on UK matters from journalists abroad, and this writer does an excellent job:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... os/619010/

[AleisterCrowley]

The Atlantic is a really good magazine - sadly I've run out of free articles for the month!
I've got "Why Canada Won’t Open Its Doors" open on another tab...

[doolally]

I wasn't sure where to put this, as it's not really suitable for the Current Affairs board, but it's an article about BoJo, and I really enjoyed it, so this seems as good a place to share it as any.

It's always interesting to get a perspective on UK matters from journalists abroad, and this writer does an excellent job:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... os/619010/

I just started to read it, and it was going ok until "David Cameron was polished and.......formidable". Cameron? Formidable? Do me a favour.

doolally

[PhaseThree]

The Atlantic is a really good magazine - sadly I've run out of free articles for the month!
I've got "Why Canada Won’t Open Its Doors" open on another tab...

So you either need to subscribe or try the following :-

The Atlantic seems to use cookies to count the articles you read
... So go to your browser cookie settings and remove all cookies from theatlantic.com
........continue reading
.............repeat as necessary

[AleisterCrowley]

Shocking..
I may try this new Edge browser that has appeared unasked for on my desktop

[moorfield]

The Atlantic is a really good magazine - sadly I've run out of free articles for the month!

Second that. I started reading a lot of the Trump articles on there last year. Try "incognito" mode.

[servodude]

The Atlantic is a really good magazine - sadly I've run out of free articles for the month!

Second that. I started reading a lot of the Trump articles on there last year. Try "incognito" mode.

There's also outline.com https://outline.com/qGghzn

-sd

[Dod101]

I must say I thought that the article was very interesting and the author has got BJ off to a tee. Whatever else he might be he is a great politician and I welcome the fact that he is a bit different. I used to quite like Matthew Parris but he hates Boris and that is basically I think because he does not understand him, not that I claim to but at least I have a better understanding than Parris seems to.

I think what the article mean about Cameron was that he had the polished air of a PM. In his way, Boris is much more of a Tony Blair than anyone else of recent years. He can connect and people like that.

Dod

[Arborbridge]

I must say I thought that the article was very interesting and the author has got BJ off to a tee. Whatever else he might be he is a great politician and I welcome the fact that he is a bit different. I used to quite like Matthew Parris but he hates Boris and that is basically I think because he does not understand him, not that I claim to but at least I have a better understanding than Parris seems to.

I think what the article mean about Cameron was that he had the polished air of a PM. In his way, Boris is much more of a Tony Blair than anyone else of recent years. He can connect and people like that.

Dod

I still do like Matthew Parris. It's not so much that he hates Johnson, but that he sees right through him to what a cad he is - he is not unsighted by all the flummery and chaff which Boris puts up.

Parris may be Tory, but he is one the moderates and that's probably why I find myself in agreement with him much of the time - although it must be admitted that some of his hopes and predictions have not come true. Such a shame that the Tory party was purged of some of its best brains and moderate MPs when Johnson went through his mini-Hitler phase in which he allowed judges and their independence to be attacked, usurped parliament and virtually suspended parliamentary democracy. This will stay on his charge sheet forever.

I know others will profoundly disagree: that's fine, but I've given my view of those terrible events which have led the country down this diabolical road we are on now - making agreements and then finding we want to break them because what we've agreed to doesn't suit us or doesn't work. This is all a result of Boris's ill judged gung-go risk taking randomness in place of true statesmanship.


Arb.

[Dod101]

I must say I thought that the article was very interesting and the author has got BJ off to a tee. Whatever else he might be he is a great politician and I welcome the fact that he is a bit different. I used to quite like Matthew Parris but he hates Boris and that is basically I think because he does not understand him, not that I claim to but at least I have a better understanding than Parris seems to.

I think what the article mean about Cameron was that he had the polished air of a PM. In his way, Boris is much more of a Tony Blair than anyone else of recent years. He can connect and people like that.

Dod

I still do like Matthew Parris. It's not so much that he hates Johnson, but that he sees right through him to what a cad he is - he is not unsighted by all the flummery and chaff which Boris puts up.

Parris may be Tory, but he is one the moderates and that's probably why I find myself in agreement with him much of the time - although it must be admitted that some of his hopes and predictions have not come true. Such a shame that the Tory party was purged of some of its best brains and moderate MPs when Johnson went through his mini-Hitler phase in which he allowed judges and their independence to be attacked, usurped parliament and virtually suspended parliamentary democracy. This will stay on his charge sheet forever.

I know others will profoundly disagree: that's fine, but I've given my view of those terrible events which have led the country down this diabolical road we are on now - making agreements and then finding we want to break them because what we've agreed to doesn't suit us or doesn't work. This is all a result of Boris's ill judged gung-go risk taking randomness in place of true statesmanship.


Arb.

I understand your point of view Arb and you clearly have others supporting your view. That is fine but I do not see Boris as a cad, not an expression I use I must say. Turning to Parris, where have moderate Tories got us? Not very far if the truth be known. Thatcher for example was not a moderate Tory and she was effective. Boris is not really a moderate Tory (although probably more moderate than we realise) but above all he is a politician and thank goodness we have one of that rare species leading the country. Amusingly or amazingly enough, he seems to be the nearest we have had to a one nation Tory for years. Cameron and May I suppose were and they were both useless.

Dod

[Dod101]

My last post did not quite say what I meant. I hope the two who supported these views will not be offended if I clarify what I meant to say. I meant for my comments re Cameron and May to read as follows

'Cameron and May were both moderate Tories and they were both useless.'

Dod

[swill453]

What I find objectionable about Johnson is that it's obvious that everything he says and does is considered so that it comes out best for him and his popularity and election/re-election prospects. Hang any other consequences.

A bloke on Radio 4 earlier, asked if Johnson should speak out against the booing of the England team "taking the knee" basically said "who cares, he'll do whatever shows him in the best light", and that resonated loud and clear with me.

Scott.

[Arborbridge]

One of the problems I have with Johnson is that I'm not even sure how to characterise him - I believe this is a result of what Swill was saying - he will do anything which points to the best solution for him. This happened over his vascillation over whether to support "remain" or "leave".
Sometimes he acts as though he's a socialist imposing rules from above, massive expenditure etc - sometimes terribly right wing and dictatorial. It's just whatever plays to the gallery best at the time. This raises the thought that he has no principles, no morals. Indeed we know factually that he lies, that he cheats, that he breaks the law, that he has been involved with some very shady characters in the past. That's why I used the word "cad" with which Dod couldn't agree. He'll do anything to win: to win "ugly" doesn't matter as history is written by the victors. That's why I (and many Tory MPs, including people he now works with) considered him unsuitable as a PM. A politician he may be, but a statesman? - no way. It's a shame, because he has the potential to become a great PM if only he had more moral fibre about him.

As to whether he is a one nation Tory, I would say provided that nation is Boris and his rich friends, yes. Has there ever been a one nation Tory - or is it just a Tory conceit? - they would like to think of themselves that way, but their idea of supporting the lower ranks is by supporting the higher ranks and hoping some crumbs drop off the table. The only one nation Tory I can think of for the moment was - ironically - Tony Blair.

Arb.

[Bouleversee]

I must say I thought that the article was very interesting and the author has got BJ off to a tee. Whatever else he might be he is a great politician and I welcome the fact that he is a bit different. I used to quite like Matthew Parris but he hates Boris and that is basically I think because he does not understand him, not that I claim to but at least I have a better understanding than Parris seems to.

I think what the article mean about Cameron was that he had the polished air of a PM. In his way, Boris is much more of a Tony Blair than anyone else of recent years. He can connect and people like that.

Dod

I still do like Matthew Parris. It's not so much that he hates Johnson, but that he sees right through him to what a cad he is - he is not unsighted by all the flummery and chaff which Boris puts up.

Parris may be Tory, but he is one the moderates and that's probably why I find myself in agreement with him much of the time - although it must be admitted that some of his hopes and predictions have not come true. Such a shame that the Tory party was purged of some of its best brains and moderate MPs when Johnson went through his mini-Hitler phase in which he allowed judges and their independence to be attacked, usurped parliament and virtually suspended parliamentary democracy. This will stay on his charge sheet forever.

I know others will profoundly disagree: that's fine, but I've given my view of those terrible events which have led the country down this diabolical road we are on now - making agreements and then finding we want to break them because what we've agreed to doesn't suit us or doesn't work. This is all a result of Boris's ill judged gung-go risk taking randomness in place of true statesmanship.


Arb.

I understand your point of view Arb and you clearly have others supporting your view. That is fine but I do not see Boris as a cad, not an expression I use I must say. Turning to Parris, where have moderate Tories got us? Not very far if the truth be known. Thatcher for example was not a moderate Tory and she was effective. Boris is not really a moderate Tory (although probably more moderate than we realise) but above all he is a politician and thank goodness we have one of that rare species leading the country. Amusingly or amazingly enough, he seems to be the nearest we have had to a one nation Tory for years. Cameron and May I suppose were and they were both useless.

Dod

I'm afraid I do see Boris as a cad without a moral compass, but then I am a woman. He has some talents and I am sure he can be quite entertaining but I wouldn't trust him an inch. The way he speaks, stopping mid-sentence and rephrasing all the time, indicates that he is not always saying what he really thinks but considering how what he says will be received by his audience and show him in the best light though perhaps this is because he has come out with some bloomers in the past. The fact that he can't even comb his hair, get his tie straight so the shirt buttons don't show or attach his buttonhole on to his jacket the right way up even on his wedding day indicates a level of incompetence and carelessness in the literal sense that is enough to put me off. I can't understand his success with women after the way he has treated so many of them.

Some things have gone well under his leadership but that is largely due to the individual in charge, notably Kate Bingham; other things have not gone well for the same reason. Picking the right people to be in charge is fundamental and should not be a matter of chance.

[Dod101]

I'm afraid I do see Boris as a cad without a moral compass, but then I am a woman. He has some talents and I am sure he can be quite entertaining but I wouldn't trust him an inch. The way he speaks, stopping mid-sentence and rephrasing all the time, indicates that he is not always saying what he really thinks but considering how what he says will be received by his audience and show him in the best light though perhaps this is because he has come out with some bloomers in the past. The fact that he can't even comb his hair, get his tie straight so the shirt buttons don't show or attach his buttonhole on to his jacket the right way up even on his wedding day indicates a level of incompetence and carelessness in the literal sense that is enough to put me off. I can't understand his success with women after the way he has treated so many of them.

Some things have gone well under his leadership but that is largely due to the individual in charge, notably Kate Bingham; other things have not gone well for the same reason. Picking the right people to be in charge is fundamental and should not be a matter of chance.

I think a lot of that is studied indifference. I am not saying I would trust him but that is different from being an effective politician.

Kate Bingham had of course a very discreet and relatively straightforward task unlike almost everything else to do with the pandemic but she certainly did a very effective job. As we have said before Ministers on the other hand are more or less picked off the street and appointed say Health Secretary and so on. No previous experience required.

Dod

[dionaeamuscipula]

The fact that he can't even comb his hair, get his tie straight so the shirt buttons don't show or attach his buttonhole on to his jacket the right way up even on his wedding day indicates a level of incompetence and carelessness in the literal sense that is enough to put me off.

There are a number of stories around which involve Johnson deliberately messing his hair up when a photographer is around.

Likewise, I have seen a story that his infamous appearance stuck on an overhead wire was deliberate.

And of course the Jeremy Vine story:

https://reaction.life/jeremy-vine-my-boris-story/

And then there are the many reports that privately he is vile and vindictive, plus the opinions of Max Hastings and Rory Stewart.

DM

[XFool]

...plus the opinions of Max Hastings and Rory Stewart.

You'll have to "unpack that", as they say.

[GrahamPlatt]

Good article. Well written and interesting. But like the author, I’m no further toward to any fundamental comprehension of the man.

[Sussexlad]

What I find objectionable about Johnson is that it's obvious that everything he says and does is considered so that it comes out best for him and his popularity and election/re-election prospects. Hang any other consequences.

A bloke on Radio 4 earlier, asked if Johnson should speak out against the booing of the England team "taking the knee" basically said "who cares, he'll do whatever shows him in the best light", and that resonated loud and clear with me.

Scott.

Isn't that the fundamental flaw with democracy, that politicians need to appear popular in order to hold office, I suspect it's why you rarely hear where the money's coming from or the word 'responsibility'!

[onthemove]

What I find objectionable about Johnson is that it's obvious that everything he says and does is considered so that it comes out best for him and his popularity and election/re-election prospects. Hang any other consequences.

The thing about Boris that I find amazing, is that he's so much of a liar - and everyone knows it - that it actually works in his favour.

- There's no shock when he's caught lying; it wouldn't be news if an investigative journalist caught him out.

- He can unambiguously say the opposite things to two different groups of people, and each group will give greater weight to which version suits them. They each will assume he's only lying when talking to the other group. So he can literally say everything, no matter how contradictory, in ear shot of all, and still get a hugely positive benefit for himself. The days of the best politicians being those with the mastery of ambiguity are long gone. Boris has realised you don't need to be ambiguous. People hear what they want to hear, so you don't even need to be discrete when telling the opposite thing to other people.

- If he were ever caught by a secret recording doing a deal with a brutal dictator, he's such a known liar that most people would actually feel sorry for the brutal dictator, and assume that whatever Boris promised him / her, Boris would never deliver anyway. Which would completely work in Boris' favour. Come on, it's true, isn't it? Be honest, if the national press ran a story tomorrow, showing Boris doing a dodgy deal with a brutal dictator, you'd probably accept the video was real, but you wouldn't believe that Boris would actually deliver on the dodgy promise, and you'd just assume it was Boris being Boris... telling yet another person just what they wanted to hear. And therefore... so what!

Is there any conceivable scandal that could come Boris' way that people would both (1) believe, and (2) could actually damage Boris' reputation, where people wouldn't be swayed by the blabbering and buffoonery and give him the benefit of the doubt?