Boris

Cometh the hour, cometh the Boris! As his wife said one dark and stormy night 😏
 
tommytwojags said:
Correct that Starmer is useless in taking Johnson to task, but the reason is that he has no alternative ideas or policies he wants to commit to. He says no return to Europe, but big swathes of his party are pushing for it. He says Labour doesn't back the rail strike while many of his shadow ministers are on the picket line. He tells us that the Tories are not doing enough to help those suffering from rising prices and that his party would do much more, but won't say how he would pay for it. He hasn't really got anything significant to say about Ukraine. Being in opposition is easy; you don't need to do anything except disagree with the govt and that's pretty much all Keir does. What he thinks about price rises, war in Eastern Europe, wage increases etc is irrelevant because his views have no effect on anything.
Click to expand...
He tells us that the Tories are not doing enough to help those suffering from rising prices and that his party would do much more, but won't say how he would pay for it.

Will you tell us how the Government pays for anything with a debt to GDP ratio of 96% and a public debt Value (excluding banks) of £2.34trn? And that is before Johnson decided to donate £1bn to Ukraine. So, go on explain that one. (Quietly....it involves borrowing).
 
1966_and_all_that said:
He tells us that the Tories are not doing enough to help those suffering from rising prices and that his party would do much more, but won't say how he would pay for it.

Will you tell us how the Government pays for anything with a debt to GDP ratio of 96% and a public debt Value (excluding banks) of £2.34trn? And that is before Johnson decided to donate £1bn to Ukraine. So, go on explain that one. (Quietly....it involves borrowing).
Click to expand...

Nothing to explain 1966. I'm sure you can see that the government is obliged to budget for expenditure in the same way that any corporation must. This might well involve borrowing, which is fine so long as there is provision for repaying the loans at some time in the future. Otherwise, the corporation will be incipiently insolvent. Contrast this with a non-entity such as political opposition party. In this case, the party has no obligation to justify how it proposes to pay its liabilities. It does not run a government and doesn't have to justify its stated expenditure. Hence my comment that whatever Keir Starmer says or does is of no relevance. He has never budgeted for any payment policies and indeed there is no requirement for him to do so. Bit like an economics student demonstrating how he would run a business if only he had one. Meaningless.
 
Last edited:
tommytwojags said:
Nothing to explain 1966. I'm sure you can see that the government is obliged to budget for expenditure in the same way that any corporation must. This might well involve borrowing, which is fine so long as there is provision for repaying the loans at some time in the future. Otherwise, the corporation will be incipiently insolvent. Contrast this with a non-entity such as political opposition party. In this case, the party has no obligation to justify how it proposes to pay its liabilities. It does not run a government and doesn't have to justify it's stated expenditure. Hence my comment that whatever Keir Starmer says or does is of no relevance. He has never budgeted for any payment policies and indeed there is no requirement for him to do so. Bit like an economics student demonstrating how he would run a business if only he had one. Meaningless.
Click to expand...
Magic Money Tree.
 
The government is g more and more mired in scandal, all caused by a lack of leadership by Boris. Minister after minister are trotted out daily to embarrassingly attempt to deny he’s responsible. His focus is on trying to deflect criticism by trying to make himself relevant on the world stage, so neither he, nor his ministers are “getting on with the job“ as they like to say.
 
Matesrates said:
The government is g more and more mired in scandal, all caused by a lack of leadership by Boris. Minister after minister are trotted out daily to embarrassingly attempt to deny he’s responsible. His focus is on trying to deflect criticism by trying to make himself relevant on the world stage, so neither he, nor his ministers are “getting on with the job“ as they like to say.
Click to expand...
Raab now harpooned live on the BBC with the release of a letter from the former Perm Sec of the FCO that Johnson was briefed on Pincher allegations 🤣🤣🤣
 
Walthamstow_Seasider said:
Raab now harpooned live on the BBC with the release of a letter from the former Perm Sec of the FCO that Johnson was briefed on Pincher allegations 🤣🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Yep similar on Sky News just after 7 when he confirmed that the PM wasn’t aware of the 2019 Pincher incident, and then when the interview finished the letter was released, more scandal and lies surrounding Bozzer!🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
 
tommytwojags said:
Nothing to explain 1966. I'm sure you can see that the government is obliged to budget for expenditure in the same way that any corporation must. This might well involve borrowing, which is fine so long as there is provision for repaying the loans at some time in the future. Otherwise, the corporation will be incipiently insolvent. Contrast this with a non-entity such as political opposition party. In this case, the party has no obligation to justify how it proposes to pay its liabilities. It does not run a government and doesn't have to justify its stated expenditure. Hence my comment that whatever Keir Starmer says or does is of no relevance. He has never budgeted for any payment policies and indeed there is no requirement for him to do so. Bit like an economics student demonstrating how he would run a business if only he had one. Meaningless.
Click to expand...
Countries are not corporations. The latter exist to make profits whilst countries exist to protect and nurture the well-being of citizens who cause them to exist. Hence, if a corporation overstretches itself it can, as you say, become insolvent and crash, or at least become ripe for takeover. A country that overstretched its finances - without any tangible return (productivity in the form of manufactures) - will cause hardship to its citizens. In current parlance that involves causing the weakest and the most vulnerable to fall into poverty and destitution; to deny opportunities to the less well off and to make life harder, even for those of us who are otherwise managing to ride things out.

Keir Starmer's job, as Leader of the Opposition is both to explain the Government's failings to the public and to convince them that he and his party would make a better fist of managing the economy and to take the country forward in a more consensual and fruitful way. As such, he has every cause to explain how his party can do this successfully.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Countries are not corporations. The latter exist to make profits whilst countries exist to protect and nurture the well-being of citizens who cause them to exist. Hence, if a corporation overstretches itself it can, as you say, become insolvent and crash, or at least become ripe for takeover. A country that overstretched its finances - without any tangible return (productivity in the form of manufactures) - will cause hardship to its citizens. In current parlance that involves causing the weakest and the most vulnerable to fall into poverty and destitution; to deny opportunities to the less well off and to make life harder, even for those of us who are otherwise managing to ride things out.

Keir Starmer's job, as Leader of the Opposition is both to explain the Government's failings to the public and to convince them that he and his party would make a better fist of managing the economy and to take the country forward in a more consensual and fruitful way. As such, he has every cause to explain how his party can do this successfully.
Click to expand...

One definition of 'corporation' is "a group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough". That is why I used that term. The word brings with it no obligation to make profits.

Your definition of the opposition leader's role is interesting and probably sums up why Keir Starmer struggles to command the respect of the voting public. Instead of convincing voters that his party would make a better job of managing the economy or taking the country forward his irritating habit of objecting to every government policy or statement without an alternative solution is hugely disaffecting. On the rare occasion that Keir nails his colours to the mast, as in Labour's newly revised policy on brexit, he is simply regurgitating another version of existing government policy. Bottom line is that the Tory party is at its most vulnerable, currently aided by almost the whole media, and Starmer still cannot convince people that he should be taken seriously or that his party is qualified to run the country.
 
Last edited:
tommytwojags said:
One definition of 'corporation' is "a group of people elected to govern a city, town, or borough. That is why I used that term. The word brings with it no obligation to make profits.

Your definition of the opposition leader's role is interesting and probably sums up why Keir Starmer struggles to command the respect of the voting public. Instead of convincing voters that his party would make a better job of managing the economy or taking the country forward his irritating habit of objecting to every government policy or statement without an alternative solution is hugely disaffecting. On the rare occasion that Keir nails his colours to the mast, as in Labour's newly revised policy on brexit, he is simply regurgitating another version of existing government policy. Bottom line is that the Tory party is at its most vulnerable, currently aided by almost the whole media, and Starmer still cannot convince people that he should be taken seriously or that his party is qualified to run the country.
Click to expand...
OK, that makes more sense. I won't blame Starmer for criticising the Government. He has also spoken repeatedly in Parliament of how Labour would address important topics - but not in detail. Don't forget, opposition parties can put together policies but they cannot be precise as to their point of implementation - they don't have access to the books. Even so, we do need to hear more from Labour regarding its broader policies. I'm never interested in the micro-costings - that's a management matter. Policies should always be firstly about the strategic way forward.
 
Everywhere I go at the moment there's a strange burning smell. Of course!...it's Boris with his pants ablaze.
 
Last edited:
The only way they can instigate another confidence vote Is if the 1922 committee changes it’s rules. That could be a possibility if two anti Boris MPs are elected to that committee this week. Watch this space
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
He actually has had a call with President Zelensky today - it really happened
Surely this is the end, how many of his MPS can tolerate this any longer?
Taxi for Johnson, paid for by Lord Brown Envelope no doubt.
Click to expand...
Yes, I saw that after I posted about him trying to arrange a trip to Ukraine. Also saw an interesting correlation between Boris scandals breaking and him to talking to Zelensky - happens every single time.

Zelensky aide : 'President Zelensky, Boris is on the phone'
Zelensky : 'Ah, he's fucked up again. Looks like we will be getting some more weapons then.'
 
He was told about Pincher when he was Foreign Secretary, he wrote it down but unfortunately his dog Dilyn ate the piece of paper and he forgot about it.

This country is too quick to disbelieve the Prime Minister. How many of us have been told about someone who's been involved in sexual misconduct, made a note of it and then forgotten? It's so easily done.
 
bollieboy said:
Yes, I saw that after I posted about him trying to arrange a trip to Ukraine. Also saw an interesting correlation between Boris scandals breaking and him to talking to Zelensky - happens every single time.

Zelensky aide : 'President Zelensky, Boris is on the phone'
Zelensky : 'Ah, he's fucked up again. Looks like we will be getting some more weapons then.'
Click to expand...
Zelensky must really want Johnson to stay in no 10 for the duration of the war, no wonder he is so compliant.
Today's call yielded an extra 100 million UKP of support on top of the 1 billion promised the last time Johnson had to distract the public.
World beating distraction tactics I think they might be called.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Zelensky must really want Johnson to stay in no 10 for the duration of the war, no wonder he is so compliant.
Today's call yielded an extra 100 million UKP of support on top of the 1 billion promised the last time Johnson had to distract the public.
World beating distraction tactics I think they might be called.
Click to expand...
Yet closer to home, we can't afford payrises above inflation or to reduce fuel costs.
 
Wizaard said:
Your pension is based on numbers of years service. Leaving early doesn't mean you get a full pension, in fact it's actuarily reduced for every year under 66 these days and you can't access it until you're 60.
Click to expand...
Blimey, thank God I got out in 2016 with a package that preserved my entitlement as at the age of 56 but payable from the leaving date - so, no actuarial reduction.
 
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that said:
Blimey, thank God out got out in 2016 with a package that preserved my entitlement as at the age of 56 but payable from the leaving date - so, no actuarial reduction.
Click to expand...
All gone. No deals, no nothing and payment aligned to state retirement Pension age.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Zelensky must really want Johnson to stay in no 10 for the duration of the war, no wonder he is so compliant.
Today's call yielded an extra 100 million UKP of support on top of the 1 billion promised the last time Johnson had to distract the public.
World beating distraction tactics I think they might be called.
Click to expand...
Yep billions poured into ukraine but we have crumbling infrastructure, health service etc that's only going one way. He's trying to play the big cheese now we are out of the eu but who's paying for it. He doesn't give a damn though
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Countries are not corporations. The latter exist to make profits whilst countries exist to protect and nurture the well-being of citizens who cause them to exist. Hence, if a corporation overstretches itself it can, as you say, become insolvent and crash, or at least become ripe for takeover. A country that overstretched its finances - without any tangible return (productivity in the form of manufactures) - will cause hardship to its citizens. In current parlance that involves causing the weakest and the most vulnerable to fall into poverty and destitution; to deny opportunities to the less well off and to make life harder, even for those of us who are otherwise managing to ride things out.

Keir Starmer's job, as Leader of the Opposition is both to explain the Government's failings to the public and to convince them that he and his party would make a better fist of managing the economy and to take the country forward in a more consensual and fruitful way. As such, he has every cause to explain how his party can do this successfully.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure governments exist to protect and nurture the well being of citizens, Governments primarily are concerned with protection of the systems and processes of government, people are never the primary consideration. The role of citizens is simply to be a resource to the system.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I'm not sure governments exist to protect and nurture the well being of citizens, Governments primarily are concerned with protection of the systems and processes of government, people are never the primary consideration. The role of citizens is simply to be a resource to the system.
Click to expand...
I was referring to liberal democratic Governments. Governments are elected by the people (or the Head of Government is in the American model), who consent to being governed in order to be protected from external aggressors and to benefit from internal security as a minimum. In advanced democracies citizens also expect a wider range of public services in exchange for their consent to being governed.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I was referring to liberal democratic Governments. Governments are elected by the people (or the Head of Government is in the American model), who consent to being governed in order to be protected from external aggressors and to benefit from internal security as a minimum. In advanced democracies citizens also expect a wider range of public services in exchange for their consent to being governed.
Click to expand...
i get the sentiment, i think it has been a long time since the UK and many other western liberal democracies have found consent to govern (ie, majority rule). The idea of being protected from external agressors and benefiting from internal security as a minimum requirement, you literally have the model of soviet Russia or modern China - who determines what constitutes internal security and who qualifies as an external agressor.

Delivering public services is merely a function of government, but we see on a daily basis how public services are reduced in order to maintain the system.

its this idea of external agressors and internal security that hypes up imagined dangers to the populace, but what is at risk exactly. The thing that has bought the UK lasting peace and significant wealth over the last 50 yeras was the EU which a small but very vocal proportion of the UK deemed to be an external agressor, taking away freedoms, national sovereignty etc. Real threats to the citizens: poverty, lack of shelter, food, clothing, never mind opportunity are deemed to be detrimental to the system and processes of government and to government itself or simply a treat to its sponsors (big corps and the very very wealthy). The right wing press reporting on the strikes is framed as a threat to security for citizens, when it is simply a threat to the governing power and its sponsors.

I think there was a time after the second world war when most industrialised countries decreed that government should be about people, which was a massive change in attitude (you might be able to take that thinking in part back to the post WW1 years - maybe) if like many economists now write about you take a thousand year view. That lasted until the mid seventies when wealth and more importantly opportunity was being more widely distributed, since then we have gradually (quite quickly) returned to a model which prioritises the 0.1% and sees the majority of the rest of the population as a resource either to exploit as labour or as consumers.

definitely this is a sidetrack from discussing the fat Cnut PM and his cretinous cohorts, but Johnson as PM is a result of a system that is claiming to be one thing - a democratic nation of the people for the people whilst operating / functioning as a simple host for generating economic growth for a system that is in competition with several hundred other systems gobally. I'm drawn to the conclusion that most modern democratic nations are now schizophrenic, so leadership has to be drawn from those who are narcissistic, socio / psychopathic, or just plain stupid. Any change that any intelligent individual would want to make to truly prioritise people and their actual humanistic need is so massive and so fundamentally anarchic that the systems i think would collapse, or there would be such massive human turmoil that you end up with similar results to the 1930's.
 
Quite simply, government is about politics first, politics second and politics third. Caring about the general public is way down their list of priorities, first and foremost in their minds is their own survival. You could argue that’s just human nature and as a speci, we haven’t changed in thousands of years.
 
Shandypants said:
Yep billions poured into ukraine but we have crumbling infrastructure, health service etc that's only going one way. He's trying to play the big cheese now we are out of the eu but who's paying for it. He doesn't give a damn though
Click to expand...
Labour will sort everything, you watch.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
i get the sentiment, i think it has been a long time since the UK and many other western liberal democracies have found consent to govern (ie, majority rule). The idea of being protected from external agressors and benefiting from internal security as a minimum requirement, you literally have the model of soviet Russia or modern China - who determines what constitutes internal security and who qualifies as an external agressor.

Delivering public services is merely a function of government, but we see on a daily basis how public services are reduced in order to maintain the system.

its this idea of external agressors and internal security that hypes up imagined dangers to the populace, but what is at risk exactly. The thing that has bought the UK lasting peace and significant wealth over the last 50 yeras was the EU which a small but very vocal proportion of the UK deemed to be an external agressor, taking away freedoms, national sovereignty etc. Real threats to the citizens: poverty, lack of shelter, food, clothing, never mind opportunity are deemed to be detrimental to the system and processes of government and to government itself or simply a treat to its sponsors (big corps and the very very wealthy). The right wing press reporting on the strikes is framed as a threat to security for citizens, when it is simply a threat to the governing power and its sponsors.

I think there was a time after the second world war when most industrialised countries decreed that government should be about people, which was a massive change in attitude (you might be able to take that thinking in part back to the post WW1 years - maybe) if like many economists now write about you take a thousand year view. That lasted until the mid seventies when wealth and more importantly opportunity was being more widely distributed, since then we have gradually (quite quickly) returned to a model which prioritises the 0.1% and sees the majority of the rest of the population as a resource either to exploit as labour or as consumers.

definitely this is a sidetrack from discussing the fat Cnut PM and his cretinous cohorts, but Johnson as PM is a result of a system that is claiming to be one thing - a democratic nation of the people for the people whilst operating / functioning as a simple host for generating economic growth for a system that is in competition with several hundred other systems gobally. I'm drawn to the conclusion that most modern democratic nations are now schizophrenic, so leadership has to be drawn from those who are narcissistic, socio / psychopathic, or just plain stupid. Any change that any intelligent individual would want to make to truly prioritise people and their actual humanistic need is so massive and so fundamentally anarchic that the systems i think would collapse, or there would be such massive human turmoil that you end up with similar results to the 1930's.
Click to expand...
OK. You are talking about failures of the Liberal democratic principle. I was setting out the principle itself. In order for China to subvert the principal the leadership uses oppression of its citizens. In the West, capitalism has facilitated the rise of the uber-rich, for whom nationality and democracy are irrelevant so long as they are protected by wealth. Hong Kong is about to test that arrangement.

However, the true test of the principle of consent can be seen the world over, where democratic consent is challenged by those who consider their Governments to fail in their obligations: the Palestinians in Israel, the Kashmiris in north-West India, the Basques in the western Pyrenees. In the UK we see the challenge to consent crystalize around nationalist and quasi-nationalist political parties: Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein and the SNP.

So, the principle is sound. Government of the people will always be challenged when the public will asserts that the social contract of Government for the people has become corrupted. Step forward one Boris Johnson.
 
Last edited:
1966_and_all_that said:
OK. You are talking about failures of the Liberal democratic principal. I was setting out the principal itself. In order for China to subvert the principal the leadership uses oppression of its citizens. In the West, capitalism has facilitated the rise of the uber-rich, for whom nationality and democracy are irrelevant so long as they are protected by wealth. Hong Kong is about to test that arrangement.

However, the true test of the principal of consent can be seen the world over, where democratic consent is challenged by those who consider their Governments to fail in their obligations: the Palestinians in Israel, the Kashmiris in north-West India, the Basques in the western Pyrenees. In the UK we see the challenge to consent crystalize around nationalist and quasi-nationalist political parties: Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein and the SNP.

So, the principal is sound. Government of the people will always be challenged when the public will asserts that the social contract of Government for the people has become corrupted. Step forward one Boris Johnson.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by the true test of consent, as in each of the cases you quote there is or was a challenge through violence. The majority of palestinians (and a majority of Israelis - ive spent a lot of time in Israel) want two independent states but a minority of religiously inspired in israel want a zionistic state, if not religiously inspired there is the utilisation of those zionistic ideas to steal what is limited fertile land and water access. The majority of Basques (I live in the Basque Country) want more independence from the spanish government, a minority who have Castillian culture and history see a 50 year old consitution as sacred and unchangable, therefore attempts to move further away from Spanish rule ends up with suspension / removal of autonomy as happened in Catalonia in 2016. The fact that a dozen or more Catalan politicians were imprisoned for what were political actions, and the vast majority of the spanish public understand this and are opposed to these actions, to me calls into question the fundamentals of democracy. I would say from what I've read that a majority of scots and Irish want independence from the UK, and i would wager that if a referendum was called in Wales it would be a close call. The majority of the uk electorate by a factor of almost 2 to 1 did not vote for Brexit. In each case here we are looking at a case of minority rule, consent has not been given, and because the groups in power understand that they are in a minority and have a minority viewpoint, measures constantly have to be put into place to protect that minority opinion / power.

The principle of liberal democracy is I think only sound when A) there is an understanding that leaders have competence, B) that leaders have accountability and C) that government is there to serve people ( not institutions, not systems and not governance). The voting public needs to believe that those principles are in play otherwise they do not vote, and what you end up with is minority opinions playing off against one another, the hyper extreme on both sides latch on to the merely extreme in voting and we end up with goverments which are shifting to one side or another or fundamentally insipid leadership that has absoultely no foundations for its policies; Biden, Sanchez, the new German leadership etc. Kier Starmer falls into that grouping, policy free-zone designed to capture all those that dont have extreme views.

i think there's a fatal flaw in democracy, the one person one vote, because the practice of it doesnt work. The first past the post system in the UK allows massive majorities in parliament with often a very slim margin of actual votes cast. similar issues exist in the US with the collegiate system, and then you have to account that a large proportion of eligible voters do not not vote or in some cases cannot vote. One persons vote often does not have parity with anothers.

The social contract between government hasnt been corrupted, it is as it always was. Leadership leads largely for their own benefit, attracting supporters / adherents who follow blindly. What we are heading for in my opinion is a return to fuedal principals, particularly evident inthe States, where a cabal of people simply gain enough followers to mould politics and general society to their own personal needs.
 
More resignations this morning, the ship is sinking but he's happy to take his party down with him. Best thing for the Tories would be for him to resign and allow someone else to lead without distractions and some ability, or else things will only get worse.
 
Junior_BentsPlatformShoes said:
More resignations this morning, the ship is sinking but he's happy to take his party down with him. Best thing for the Tories would be for him to resign and allow someone else to lead without distractions and some ability, or else things will only get worse.
Click to expand...
Excellent line by Starmer in PMQs: "This must the only recorded instance of the sinking ships leaving the rat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top