Home & Garden0 min ago
Is It All Over For Boris Johnson?
…or is there a way back for him?
What would have to happen to allow him back into Number 10?
https:/
What would have to happen to allow him back into Number 10?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the prof:
//Parliamentarians mislead parliament every day eg "we have the greatest health service in the world" but these are short of being provable lies.//
There are statements which whilst being palpably untrue do not amount to lies. Like in advertising, a company can say:
"Gillette...the best that man can get".
That doesn't mean Gillette razors are literally the best in world. We can separate the literal from the figurative.
Figurative: "...and I believe that the NHS is the greatest health service in the world, and with the funding we will provide it will continue to be the shining beacon...blah blah".
//Parliamentarians mislead parliament every day eg "we have the greatest health service in the world" but these are short of being provable lies.//
There are statements which whilst being palpably untrue do not amount to lies. Like in advertising, a company can say:
"Gillette...the best that man can get".
That doesn't mean Gillette razors are literally the best in world. We can separate the literal from the figurative.
Figurative: "...and I believe that the NHS is the greatest health service in the world, and with the funding we will provide it will continue to be the shining beacon...blah blah".
theprof: I don't know in what way I've "confirmed your view", you might have to be more specific. If you mean in terms of the "kangaroo court", I don't think this is a kangaroo court, or could be described as one, and it's disappointing that Johnson's statements in his written and oral evidence to the effect of "I'll accept the verdict was reached impartially only if it clears me" are, in effect, so wholeheartedly endorsed. There are still factual questions to be assessed, and they don't have anything to do with how effective he was as a leader during Covid.
// I would suggest to you that losing a by-election may not be as detrimental to his parliamentary future as you assert. //
I only said it would be affected, which would obviously be true. I'm not even convinced that he'd *lose* such a by-election, if it comes to that, but yes, maybe he gets parachuted in to some safe seat, and resumes his career that way. Still, as a matter of course PMs can only lead if their party is behind them, and in multiple ways it's clear that Johnson as a leader didn't inspire his Party at all. A great campaigner, but not a great leader -- not of MPs, at any rate, but they are the ones who matter the most!
As for the // Parliamentarians mislead parliament every day //, well, maybe, but firstly we shouldn't really tolerate *that* either, and secondly Ministers, and particularly Prime Ministers, must surely have an additional responsibility to the truth in a sense by virtue of being in Government. Their "lies", or their mistakes, are that much more impactful by virtue of their extra power. This is why they're obliged to correct the record as soon as possible when they make a mistake. In this case, as I'm sure you know, part of Johnson's defence is that he *did* correct the record at the earliest opportunity, that being after the Sue Gray report was completed (and, in turn, after the Met investigation).
These are questions about conduct in Parliament, and I'm not sure why Johnson should be defended just because they are (allegedly) all at it to some extent. We shouldn't really tolerate any of this. Also, for what it's worth, I don't think that these are "deliberate lies", I'm happy to accept Johnson's defence to the extent that he genuinely didn't think that rules/guidance had been broken at any of the events he was part of. The question of whether this was "reckless", though, revolves around whether he *should* have known this, or should have taken more care over who he consulted before offering this, ultimately incorrect, assurance.
// I would suggest to you that losing a by-election may not be as detrimental to his parliamentary future as you assert. //
I only said it would be affected, which would obviously be true. I'm not even convinced that he'd *lose* such a by-election, if it comes to that, but yes, maybe he gets parachuted in to some safe seat, and resumes his career that way. Still, as a matter of course PMs can only lead if their party is behind them, and in multiple ways it's clear that Johnson as a leader didn't inspire his Party at all. A great campaigner, but not a great leader -- not of MPs, at any rate, but they are the ones who matter the most!
As for the // Parliamentarians mislead parliament every day //, well, maybe, but firstly we shouldn't really tolerate *that* either, and secondly Ministers, and particularly Prime Ministers, must surely have an additional responsibility to the truth in a sense by virtue of being in Government. Their "lies", or their mistakes, are that much more impactful by virtue of their extra power. This is why they're obliged to correct the record as soon as possible when they make a mistake. In this case, as I'm sure you know, part of Johnson's defence is that he *did* correct the record at the earliest opportunity, that being after the Sue Gray report was completed (and, in turn, after the Met investigation).
These are questions about conduct in Parliament, and I'm not sure why Johnson should be defended just because they are (allegedly) all at it to some extent. We shouldn't really tolerate any of this. Also, for what it's worth, I don't think that these are "deliberate lies", I'm happy to accept Johnson's defence to the extent that he genuinely didn't think that rules/guidance had been broken at any of the events he was part of. The question of whether this was "reckless", though, revolves around whether he *should* have known this, or should have taken more care over who he consulted before offering this, ultimately incorrect, assurance.
fripfrip
On the News section questions are frequently asked in order to spark a debate. On other sections in the AnswerBank a specific answer is sought (eg. in Media and TV someone may ask "Is it possible to rewind live TV on Freeview?").
You'll notice that the question I asked morphed into a discussion on Johnson's relative merits as a politician, and that's cool - all part of the debate.
Talking of which, what do *you* think?
On the News section questions are frequently asked in order to spark a debate. On other sections in the AnswerBank a specific answer is sought (eg. in Media and TV someone may ask "Is it possible to rewind live TV on Freeview?").
You'll notice that the question I asked morphed into a discussion on Johnson's relative merits as a politician, and that's cool - all part of the debate.
Talking of which, what do *you* think?
I think that there is nothing Boris could do to reduce public confidence in the present government. PMs both before and after him have merely dropped the party reputation through the floor. Whereas Boris fought off a ridiculous level of attack from politicians and others who simply didn't want out nation to be sovereign again, and still delivered Brexit (not ignoring that it is presently under a flawed post-Brexit agreement on EU relationships/control and desperately needs sorting). Although we are officially out, the loose ends need sorting.
I also think that many who achieve power have flaws which, at least in part, are why they make it to the top; and that society should stop make a fuss of trivialities and concentrate on the important issues, such as reviewing EU laws that still are part of our own system (and clearly already causing problems) and kicking EU interference in the UK, particularly wrt NI into touch. Sorting out border/illegal economic migrant problems, and continuing to make progress on trade deals thw world over.
For all the critisisms leveled at BJ he achieved more than any other politician was either capable of, or willing to take on, and given that, should be entitled to a bit of slack.
I also think that many who achieve power have flaws which, at least in part, are why they make it to the top; and that society should stop make a fuss of trivialities and concentrate on the important issues, such as reviewing EU laws that still are part of our own system (and clearly already causing problems) and kicking EU interference in the UK, particularly wrt NI into touch. Sorting out border/illegal economic migrant problems, and continuing to make progress on trade deals thw world over.
For all the critisisms leveled at BJ he achieved more than any other politician was either capable of, or willing to take on, and given that, should be entitled to a bit of slack.
Those that can see what he achieved and wanted out of the EU will remain approving. Those that can see what he achieved and wanted to remain controlled by an answerable to no one unelected elite will remain disapproving. Few will change their view. So despite BJ being one of the best politicians for the job, getting the party reputation raised is likely to be impossible until time passes and the citizens realise how much bigger a mess any (most ?) alternatives would make. Maybe someone should persuade Lord Frost to run for election and then put himself forward for party leader. He has a better chance than most to give the party backbone.
sp thank you for your reply,in my opinion boris has not been treated fairly,partygate?from the pictures in the newspapers that did not look like any party i have ever been to,i think most of the trouble started when his sidekick dominic cummings started drip feeding the press with stories,who knows if not for covid and the war in ukraine it might have been a better outcome for boris.
When your own side is sick of you there's no coming back from that.
Trump seems to have bucked that trend
One Trump lackey on site said, Jan 6th - "they storm the Capitol and we all go to prison" - but of course only the little people did
As for Boris INCREASING confidence in the Tories
why, that is like Scargill saying - vote labour
(" every time Scargill opens his mouth, it is worth a million votes")
Trump seems to have bucked that trend
One Trump lackey on site said, Jan 6th - "they storm the Capitol and we all go to prison" - but of course only the little people did
As for Boris INCREASING confidence in the Tories
why, that is like Scargill saying - vote labour
(" every time Scargill opens his mouth, it is worth a million votes")
