General British politics discussion thread

O'Neill

Aegir wrote: »

I would agree with that. No one really wants a change in government at the moment so he is fairly safe, at least his job is. The metropolitan police may like a word though.....

I certainly do and I'm certainly not alone in thinking this, although point taken in that they're still leading the polls which I find alarming tbh. This isn't a normal Conservative Government, it's a Populist Government that's becoming very dangeriously close in mirroring Orbans Government in my opinion.

Look at all of the scandals in the last year alone (their overall Covid strategy was a complete shambles, exams fiasco, their comments about abandoning international law, Dido Harding, corruption ect.. just the cabinets overall brazen attitude has been a disgrace:

Not a single resignation.It's almost like they're testing the waters to see how much they can get away with.

Rjd2

Their has been plenty of criticism from the right wing press recently towards Boris, so yeah definitely feel Gove is behind this as he is close to Murdoch and obviously worked with Cummings previously.

weemcd

Rjd2 wrote: »

Their has been plenty of criticism from the right wing press recently towards Boris, so yeah definitely feel Gove is behind this as he is close to Murdoch and obviously worked with Cummings previously.

I wouldn't be completely against this. Gove is reptilian and nowhere near as electable as Johnson, who for some reason a lot of English seem to still want to vote for.

Now if Labour would get their fùcking act together and stop missing open goals...

J Mysterio

Seems there are three or four (or five?) scandals swirling around Johnson at the moment and political pressure is building.

Stefanovic has done a terrific job to highlight Johnson's lying, and seems it's beginning to bear fruit. BBC still largely ignoring or minimising events however. Kuenssberg calls Boris behaviour 'sleaze', rather than 'lying', 'dishonesty', or 'corruption'.

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1387143853589901317?s=20

devnull

I've just seen the front page of the Daily Express, they've not mentioned a word on these scandals (even the Mail has) and must surely now be the most pro Government newspaper of the lot these days.

https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1387162507077427205

breezy1985

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

The latest opinion poll out today, conducted this week during all the so-called scandals, shows the publicity has had absolutely no impact on the Tories lead over Labour.


CON: 44% (-)

LAB: 33% (-1)

GRN: 7% (-)

LDEM: 7% (+2)
REFUK: 3% (+1)



via YouGov


Generally speaking people care more about the vaccine rollout and the virtual eradicating of Covid in the UK than Wetsminster witterings about who paid for the curtains.

I always find it quite interesting that these polls always leave out the 3rd 5th and 6th biggest parties.
They are also pretty misleading in a FPTP system

MrMusician18

Aegir wrote: »

The facts pretty much speak for themselves. There is no gaslighting. The U.K. has issues over 45,000,000 doses.

It has, but does that fact make Johnson more popular? The Tory press would have you believe that, but when things like "let the bodies pile high" come out, it really undermines that message.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It has, but does that fact make Johnson more popular? The Tory press would have you believe that, but when things like "let the bodies pile high" come out, it really undermines that message.

Well that message did come from the same mouth as the
"I'd rather be dead in a ditch than agree Brexit extension", so the UK public are used to such utterings and mostly pay no heed to them.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well that message did come from the same mouth as the
"I'd rather be dead in a ditch than agree Brexit extension", so the UK public are used to such utterings and mostly pay no heed to them.

that's pretty much it.

I would guess 90% of the population wrote that off as "That's the kind of stupid thing he would say".

Strazdas

Aegir wrote: »

The facts pretty much speak for themselves. There is no gaslighting. The U.K. has issues over 45,000,000 doses.

Indeed, but why should Johnson get a huge "vaccine boost" from this? There's no talk in the US media of how wonderful a President Joe Biden is because so many people have been vaccinated....people there would nearly expect such a rapid vaccine rollout to happen and not to associate it with him.

blackcard

Knuckles Kennedy wrote: »

Looking at the opinion polls I would say very much so.
And I'll give you an example of why.

He thinks the electorate in the forthcoming local elections who are begining to emerge from the pandemic thanks to the vaccine decisions Boris took a year ago which resulted in the UK's hugely successful rollout and easing of restrictions are going to care that the Tory party lent Johnson money to do up his flat at Number 11 Downing Street.


How many clauses in this sentence?

Strazdas

It would appear Johnson has cash flow problems, hence the needs for donations from all over the shop

https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1388543364279242757

listermint

Strazdas wrote: »

It would appear Johnson has cash flow problems, hence the needs for donations from all over the shop

https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1388543364279242757

Obviously the most rationale choice for Prime Minister. I mean why wouldn't you want a man that's on debt probably to alot of expectant individuals.

CelticRambler

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, but why should Johnson get a huge "vaccine boost" from this? There's no talk in the US media of how wonderful a President Joe Biden is because so many people have been vaccinated....

The US media has more or less beatified Joe Biden at this stage, on account of his pandemic performance - mainly for getting vaccinations done. Even the right wing media is struggling to find reasons to hate him, when their audience thinks he's doing a wonderful job!

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

It would appear Johnson has cash flow problems, hence the needs for donations from all over the shop

https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1388543364279242757

This is the man who once described his £250k salary for spaffing out some rubbish for the telegraph as "chicken feed". However could he possibly get by on the pittance he gets for his current role, especially with all that alimony and god knows how many kids education funds to contribute to. And all the while he sees his old bete noir Dave absolutelycoining it just to rub salt into the wounds. I imagine when his memoirs do appear, we will get a thorough account of all the heroic sacrifices he made to lead his country through these dark times in such churchillian fashion.

Leroy42

CelticRambler wrote: »

The US media has more or less beatified Joe Biden at this stage, on account of his pandemic performance - mainly for getting vaccinations done. Even the right wing media is struggling to find reasons to hate him, when their audience thinks he's doing a wonderful job!

Because he has, overall and particularly in respect of vaccine roll out, done a wonderful job.

It is also very advantageous for him that Trump was so awful. Not only as a person, but the cost for him wasn't worth it as he was terrible at his job.

So all Biden really has to do is not be as bad as Trump. That is such a low bar that it appears he gets an easy time.

But Biden isn't simply not as bad as Trump. By most measures he is knocking it out the park.

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

The US media has more or less beatified Joe Biden at this stage, on account of his pandemic performance - mainly for getting vaccinations done. Even the right wing media is struggling to find reasons to hate him, when their audience thinks he's doing a wonderful job!

My point is not Biden hasn't done an excellent job with vaccinations - he has - but their media hasn't used it as a propaganda tool to boost him and gaslight the population. There is as much emphasis on other aspects of his new Presidency.

The strange thing about the right wing press's propaganda efforts on behalf of Johnson and vaccines is that it seems to have been all in vain - they have viciously turned on him in a matter of a few short weeks (on the instructions of their billionaire owners).

breezy1985

Strazdas wrote: »

My point is not Biden hasn't done an excellent job with vaccinations - he has - but their media hasn't used it as a propaganda tool to boost him and gaslight the population. There is as much emphasis on other aspects of his new Presidency.

The strange thing about the right wing press's propaganda efforts on behalf of Johnson and vaccines is that it seems to have been all in vain - they have viciously turned on him in a matter of a few short weeks (on the instructions of their billionaire owners).

There is one absolutely huge difference between Biden and Johnson and that is that Biden has been pro lockdown and vaccine from the start where as Johnson got a lot of people killed before he then fast tracked the vaccine program and got lucky when his gambles with rapid vaccine approval and the 12 week 2nd dose paid off

CelticRambler

Strazdas wrote: »

My point is not Biden hasn't done an excellent job with vaccinations - he has - but their media hasn't used it as a propaganda tool to boost him and gaslight the population. There is as much emphasis on other aspects of his new Presidency.

Ah, fair enough. In that case, would say that the American media has a significant advantage over their British counterparts: Biden's presidency has other things to emphasise - Johnson has ... well, Brexit, new curtains and a new press room but no press secretary to use it.

Capt'n Midnight

breezy1985 wrote: »

There is one absolutely huge difference between Biden and Johnson and that is that Biden has been pro lockdown and vaccine from the start where as Johnson got a lot of people killed before he then fast tracked the vaccine program and got lucky when his gambles with rapid vaccine approval and the 12 week 2nd dose paid off

Also Johnson is alleged to have said let the bodies pile high when he's already had a dose and the vaccine.

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

Obviously the most rationale choice for Prime Minister. I mean why wouldn't you want a man that's on debt probably to alot of expectant individuals.

Exactly. If Johnson were a civil servant applying for a job in the Cabinet Office he would fail positive vetting, because significant debt and/or an inability to live within your means is seen as making you a security vulnerability.

ArmaniJeanss

Johnson's money issue does raise the question of how long he plans to stick around in Downing Street for.

His earnings potential when he leaves the pm job & parliament is probably around £8M/£10M a year.
The problem being he can't cash that in in any meaningful way yet (can't borrow off Tory donors as someone always grasses, & banks would be wary of an obviously unhealthy man who might not be making any repayments for another 5 years).

On the other hand the party really want him to led them into the next election, which doesn't have to take place until Autumn 2024. Win that and it's probably late 2025 before he can resign - in theory he could win and retire the next day but I think even the Tories/Johnson would see that as indecent.

I wouldn't be surprised if an agreement is reached for a May 2022 election, allowing him to bow out in 2023. If they still have a healthy lead in the polls early next year it's what I'd expect.

Capt'n Midnight

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

If they still have a healthy lead in the polls early next year it's what I'd expect.

We will know more on Friday

No overnight counts. I'm not sure what is happening with exit polls.

Peregrinus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Johnson's money issue does raise the question of how long he plans to stick around in Downing Street for.

His earnings potential when he leaves the pm job & parliament is probably around £8M/£10M a year.
The problem being he can't cash that in in any meaningful way yet (can't borrow off Tory donors as someone always grasses, & banks would be wary of an obviously unhealthy man who might not be making any repayments for another 5 years).

On the other hand the party really want him to led them into the next election, which doesn't have to take place until Autumn 2024. Win that and it's probably late 2025 before he can resign - in theory he could win and retire the next day but I think even the Tories/Johnson would see that as indecent.

I wouldn't be surprised if an agreement is reached for a May 2022 election, allowing him to bow out in 2023. If they still have a healthy lead in the polls early next year it's what I'd expect.

Given the considerations you mention, why would the opposition agree to an early election? They've agreed to the last two early elections and lost them both, so their instinct would be to be wary. And your own post lays out reasons which should suggest to them that they would be better served by letting the present government run its course.

Sam Russell

Would it not be a massive irony if Johnson was forced to quit over the curtains-for-cash scandal. He and the mother of his latest child would be forced to leave the £200,000 curtains, wallpaper, and other designer trophies behind - after trying to persuade the world that these items were paid for by the PM from his own resources.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave - When first we practice to deceive' - but that was a Scottish guy that said that.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would it not be a massive irony if Johnson was forced to quit over the curtains-for-cash scandal. He and the mother of his latest child would be forced to leave the £200,000 curtains, wallpaper, and other designer trophies behind - after trying to persuade the world that these items were paid for by the PM from his own resources.

'Oh what a tangled web we weave - When first we practice to deceive' - but that was a Scottish guy that said that.

I just love the number of children section in Johnson's Wikipedia profile. "At least 6"

Seth Brundle

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I just love the number of children section in Johnson's Wikipedia profile. "At least 6"

It says a lot about the man! :rolleyes:

Professor Moriarty

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It says a lot about the man! :rolleyes:

Exactly.

ArmaniJeanss

Peregrinus wrote: »

Given the considerations you mention, why would the opposition agree to an early election? They've agreed to the last two early elections and lost them both, so their instinct would be to be wary. And your own post lays out reasons which should suggest to them that they would be better served by letting the present government run its course.

The opposition doesn't really have to agree as such. The Fixed Term Parliament Act only needs a simple Commons majority to be overturned, and it was definitely in the Conservative manifesto for the December 2019 GE to remove it (indeed I think it was also in the Labour manifesto).

I believe it's politically difficult for the opposition to refuse an election anyway, regardless of the FTPA. Opposition is predicated on 'this lot in charge are rubbish, we could do better'. Turning down the chance to put that to the test looks very weak.

Joe_ Public

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The opposition doesn't really have to agree as such. The Fixed Term Parliament Act only needs a simple Commons majority to be overturned, and it was definitely in the Conservative manifesto for the December 2019 GE to remove it (indeed I think it was also in the Labour manifesto).

I believe it's politically difficult for the opposition to refuse an election anyway, regardless of the FTPA. Opposition is predicated on 'this lot in charge are rubbish, we could do better'. Turning down the chance to put that to the test looks very weak.

I think the problem for johnson is he might want an election asap to capitalise on the vaccine roll out buzz and favourable poll ratings before the inevitable downturn comes, but the route to it is a bit more problematic now than it was in 2019 when he could at least try to justify engaging in some dark constitutional arts by arguing they were in a constitutional crisis and an election was the only way out of it. To try and subvert the FTPA again for what would be quite transparently political and electoral reasons would be a very dangerous route to take. You never know with this lot, of course, but unless they can get rid of the act entirely and restore the power to the executive itself, i couldn't see them going down that road again. I'd even wonder if there's a chance it would end them back before the courts one more time.