WHY does Mad Vlad keep on deluging PB with his lame-ass Putin-bots?
I mean, we've got MORE than enough active PB Putinists on this board already.
We should perhaps be asking whether Putin was behind the operation to bring down his nemesis Boris Johnson. Were any anti-Boris posters during that era on the Kremlin payroll?
Oh FFS!
Johnson was the architect of his own demise.
Putin might like to claim he had a hand in Johnson's defenestration, but unless he was at the Downing Street parties or encouraging Johnson to save Patterson and Pincher, he can claim Jack S**t!
The rewriting of history also I notice focuses on partygate but conveniently ignores the sleaze that Johnson was protecting. It was the behaviour over Pincher that brought him down after he'd been forgiven multiple times by his own party for other misdemeanours.
It's not as if once partygate had blown over there wouldn't have been other nonsense. The circus would have continued. There would have been more Peppa Pig performances, barefaced lies about topics like borders in the Irish sea and no doubt more Jennifer Arcuri style scandals.
He was a wrongun. Not remotely as bad as Trump but the GOP's gradual degradation at the latter's hands points towards the risks to the Tories' moral fibre if they'd kept him on.
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
I thought it was 20%, but let's not quibble over trifles.
Good for E Jean Carroll. (I keep wanting to call her Eugene when I hear it read out).
I think he has 2 Appeal stages:
Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals.
(Obviously since it is NY, the names are the wrong way around.)
So Mr Trump has a couple of weeks to liberate another $600 million or so.
If he is successfully getting insurance companies to post the bonds, then surely he does not need to "liberate" the funds?
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
The only reason for Sunak to go in May is that he is frit, more frit of his own backbenchers than of the judgement of the electorate at large.
That may well be true, but he'd have at least been hoping for the slightest ray of light in the polling to provide cover for going in May and there is none. I've been fond of the theory, but I think it's a no now.
WHY does Mad Vlad keep on deluging PB with his lame-ass Putin-bots?
I mean, we've got MORE than enough active PB Putinists on this board already.
We should perhaps be asking whether Putin was behind the operation to bring down his nemesis Boris Johnson. Were any anti-Boris posters during that era on the Kremlin payroll?
Oh FFS!
Johnson was the architect of his own demise.
Putin might like to claim he had a hand in Johnson's defenestration, but unless he was at the Downing Street parties or encouraging Johnson to save Patterson and Pincher, he can claim Jack S**t!
The rewriting of history also I notice focuses on partygate but conveniently ignores the sleaze that Johnson was protecting. It was the behaviour over Pincher that brought him down after he'd been forgiven multiple times by his own party for other misdemeanours.
It's not as if once partygate had blown over there wouldn't have been other nonsense. The circus would have continued. There would have been more Peppa Pig performances, barefaced lies about topics like borders in the Irish sea and no doubt more Jennifer Arcuri style scandals.
He was a wrongun. Not remotely as bad as Trump but the GOP's gradual degradation at the latter's hands points towards the risks to the Tories' moral fibre if they'd kept him on.
Besides, if you're going to mention "he was on fifty percent", it's worth noting that Conservative ratings had already reached thirty percent (and falling) under Boris. Apart from the vaccine bounce, it was a steady decline of a percent or so per month.
Most of the fall in Conservative rating happened under Boris, and even if Pinchergate and being expelled from Parliament for lying hadn't happened, there's no particular reason to think that it wouldn't have continued under him.
Besides, the reason that Truss and Sunak were in pole position to follow Johnson was because he put them there.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
The only reason for Sunak to go in May is that he is frit, more frit of his own backbenchers than of the judgement of the electorate at large.
That may well be true, but he'd have at least been hoping for the slightest ray of light in the polling to provide cover for going in May and there is none. I've been fond of the theory, but I think it's a no now.
They are great once you get used to them. Everywhere around me is now 20mph, which is like zen for cars. Driving is more pleasant in a residential area as people have more time to anticipate bottlenecks. I’m unsurprised they have proven popular.
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
I swear down I haven’t heard the Ulex mentioned for months, and I live in the far flung suburbs
This weeks average polling chart, three polls pre budget and three after.
Reform continuing their upward trajectory.
It's interesting to compare with the polling from 2019. In hindsight it's clear that Johnson saved them from disaster.
The difference this time is that there's no Boris on the horizon. If Reform can run a professional campaign and Sunak flounders, then a Canadian-style wipeout can't be ruled out.
They are absolutely screwed. I’d forgotten how bad it was for them pre Boris… and it’s heading that way post Boris too
So they struggled before Boris ("BB") and are struggling after Boris ("AB"). Hmm. It would appear that the sweet spot is ... well do we need to say it?
Boris in no small way *caused* that situation in 2019.
He did. And then got himself elected as Leader, then set up the whole People v Parliament thing, then won that landslide. It was, and please picture my teeth gritting like mad here, a tour de force of political opportunism. It worked a dream. And he'll be happy as larry now too, with all of this 'Oh if only' talk. He got what he wanted.
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
And speaking of which, NO₂ levels in London have fallen 49% since 2016.
Not all of that is down to ULEZ, of course - there are many causes of the move away from diesel engines, but the fall in England as a whole was only 35%, which strongly suggests that ULEZ is having the intended effect.
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
I swear down I haven’t heard the Ulex mentioned for months, and I live in the far flung suburbs
At moment am getting daily dose of anti-ULEZ propaganda on my YouTube feed. My guess is that this is mix of anti-ULEZers and Tory hackery.
Not a criticism - there IS an election in May in Greater Great Wen.
Just for the sake of argument, if the Tories could parachute Johnson back into a safe seat, and he survived the necessary by-election (by no means assured), what could he do as a returning leader ?
What policies could he credibly promoted that might make any difference at all ?
Who would even agree to serve as (for example) his Chancellor ?
Lots of Boosterism and Cakeism probably.
I'm sure he could fine someone to serve as his Chancellor. Patel, Badenoch, Mogg, Aaron Bell (OK maybe not him...)
Aaron Bell would make a good Chancellor.
And can I just add that Michael Fabricant would also be brilliant.
(As he deleted his sharing of a tweet "depicting London mayor Sadiq Khan ... in a sex act with a pig", that can in no way be held against him.)
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
I swear down I haven’t heard the Ulex mentioned for months, and I live in the far flung suburbs
Something came up on a Facebook page the other day, but AFAIR no-one Liked it, or followed it up.
As far as I see it it is Starmer and Labour supporters who are trying to bounce Sunak into an election in May that he has not remotely suggested
He has consistently referred to later in the year and the current evidence in the polls is that it would be a landslide Labour win if it was in May
I really do not see how it could be much worse in October November, but irrespective of when it is, the key to Starmer's majority is just how well Reform performs in a GE which is electing a government for 5 years and is not a protest vote
However, it really doesn't matter when it is Starmer will win
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
Bit in bold. It does seem like a thing in our modern age. David Cameron became favorite after one speech, Penny Mordaunt lost her place after her Con speech.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Frankly, that whole screed is an indictment of its author; a purely transactional account that the Tories should lose less badly under a liar, cheat, bully, coward and rule-breaker than under a bit of an odd duffer; that MPs should put up with his behaviour, his abuse of patronage, his corruption of the entire system, just so Labour's majority is (probably) marginally less gargantuan. It's not as if Johnson's ratings were anything to write home about in 2019 and that was just when he was hiding in a fridge rather than partying while the country was in lockdown and the Queen mourned.
Nor does it give any sense as to recovery. Having sold their morals and ethics so cheaply, from where do they then start to oppose Labour?
It's a good example of its type in that it implies Trump/Johnson ARE men of principle, with a 'sophisticated' backnote that they clearly aren't and their gullible supporters are being conned.
This is the default tone of the 'straining for respectability' strand of alt-right commentary. You see it all over Speccie/unHerdland.
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
I swear down I haven’t heard the Ulex mentioned for months, and I live in the far flung suburbs
Something came up on a Facebook page the other day, but AFAIR no-one Liked it, or followed it up.
Evening, OKC. There has in fact been a response to the LTN news
PS Of course, a LTN is really "the sort of traffic calming measure many, many Tory voters like to have in their 1970s and 1980s owner-occupier estates but is the spawn of the Corbynite-Green devil when it happens in someone else's estate so they can't tool past as if externalities don't exist closer than Delta Leonis III".
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
Bit in bold. It does seem like a thing in our modern age. David Cameron became favorite after one speech, Penny Mordaunt lost her place after her Con speech.
One of the worst speech flops in quasi-recent US politics, was the egg that Bill Clinton of all people laid at the 1988 Democratic National Convention
LA Times (June 22, 1988) - It Was the Speech That Ate Atlanta
ATLANTA — “Please. Your time is up.” That was the message flashed across the TelePrompTer Wednesday night during the marathon speech by Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. The 41-year-old governor, given the publicity plum of the convention, turned his scheduled 15-minute nomination speech into a discourse of at least twice that length.
“Give him the hook,” some delegates chanted. Reports from those inside the convention machinery said that the TelePrompTer was finally turned off, a last-ditch effort to turn off the oratory.
“Nationally televised political suicide” was the consensus--doubly surprising since Clinton had presidential aspirations of his own this year and has been considered a real comer, a self-described “wandering minstrel of the Democratic Party.” . . .
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
I swear down I haven’t heard the Ulex mentioned for months, and I live in the far flung suburbs
Some nutter blew one up recently or cut it down and left it live, and the leccy shorted with the same effect -shrapnel on all the local cars and windows, very unhappy locals.
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
I swear down I haven’t heard the Ulex mentioned for months, and I live in the far flung suburbs
Some nutter blew one up recently or cut it down and left it live, and the leccy shorted with the same effect -shrapnel on all the local cars and windows, very unhappy locals.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
If polled I would agree Johnson has 'lots of personality' - that's the point of his 'Boris' persona. I wouldn't read too much into the public thinking he is less boring than Starmer as that's self-evident. I wouldn't trust him to look after my dog, let alone the country, and would never vote for him under any circumstances.
As far as I see it it is Starmer and Labour supporters who are trying to bounce Sunak into an election in May that he has not remotely suggested
He has consistently referred to later in the year and the current evidence in the polls is that it would be a landslide Labour win if it was in May
I really do not see how it could be much worse in October November, but irrespective of when it is, the key to Starmer's majority is just how well Reform performs in a GE which is electing a government for 5 years and is not a protest vote
However, it really doesn't matter when it is Starmer will win
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
And speaking of which, NO₂ levels in London have fallen 49% since 2016.
Not all of that is down to ULEZ, of course - there are many causes of the move away from diesel engines, but the fall in England as a whole was only 35%, which strongly suggests that ULEZ is having the intended effect.
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
Just watched it. Oh dear. It's like AI doing a crazy fascist Stepford wife!
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
I swear down I haven’t heard the Ulex mentioned for months, and I live in the far flung suburbs
Some nutter blew one up recently or cut it down and left it live, and the leccy shorted with the same effect -shrapnel on all the local cars and windows, very unhappy locals.
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
Sean Ross exiled to ConservativeHome for using the trite cliche ‘colour me surprised’. Dear me. He’ll be taking about heavy lifting, and features not bugs next.
As far as I see it it is Starmer and Labour supporters who are trying to bounce Sunak into an election in May that he has not remotely suggested
He has consistently referred to later in the year and the current evidence in the polls is that it would be a landslide Labour win if it was in May
I really do not see how it could be much worse in October November, but irrespective of when it is, the key to Starmer's majority is just how well Reform performs in a GE which is electing a government for 5 years and is not a protest vote
However, it really doesn't matter when it is Starmer will win
So you are saying Sunak will bottle it?
If he had said he was holding a May election then that would be valid, but as he has not and stated it will be in the Autumn on several occasions including yesteday then of course not and labour just desperately trying to make something out of nothing
He should have remembered what happens in Uxbridge, stays in Uxbridge.
Not just where it happened, but when it happened- shortly before ULEZ expansion went live. There are still people unhappy about ULEZ on the fringes of London, but not many, and a lot of them have had to add extra issues to keep their enthusiasm going.
And speaking of which, NO₂ levels in London have fallen 49% since 2016.
Not all of that is down to ULEZ, of course - there are many causes of the move away from diesel engines, but the fall in England as a whole was only 35%, which strongly suggests that ULEZ is having the intended effect.
Indeed. Where are these Londoners who want poorer air quality in our city? A rare and odd breed, even if they exist at all.
Exactly - the people who were personally affected most at the time have now mostly got a cleaner vehicle and everyone else has forgotten about it. I also haven't heard anyone mention it for months now. It will be a non-issue at the next GE.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
If polled I would agree Johnson has 'lots of personality' - that's the point of his 'Boris' persona. I wouldn't read too much into the public thinking he is less boring than Starmer as that's self-evident. I wouldn't trust him to look after my dog, let alone the country, and would never vote for him under any circumstances.
But not every voter is a ‘political overthinker, touched by genius’ like so many on PB. They’re not all immune to anything but indestructible logic. Many civvies are likely to be influenced to vote a certain way by a charismatic personality
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
Sean Ross exiled to ConservativeHome for using the trite cliche ‘colour me surprised’. Dear me. He’ll be taking about heavy lifting, and features not bugs next.
I'll tell you what I haven't seen for ages - 'It's a view'.
It's been so long that I reckon it can be rehabilitated as newly fresh and totally acceptable.
Although 'I reckon' is doing the work of several Bulgarian clean-and-jerk Olympic gold medallists there.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
If polled I would agree Johnson has 'lots of personality' - that's the point of his 'Boris' persona. I wouldn't read too much into the public thinking he is less boring than Starmer as that's self-evident. I wouldn't trust him to look after my dog, let alone the country, and would never vote for him under any circumstances.
But not every voter is a ‘political overthinker, touched by genius’ like so many on PB. They’re not all immune to anything but indestructible logic. Many civvies are likely to be influenced to vote a certain way by a charismatic personality
They're more influenced yet by whether they feel richer this year than last.
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
If polled I would agree Johnson has 'lots of personality' - that's the point of his 'Boris' persona. I wouldn't read too much into the public thinking he is less boring than Starmer as that's self-evident. I wouldn't trust him to look after my dog, let alone the country, and would never vote for him under any circumstances.
But not every voter is a ‘political overthinker, touched by genius’ like so many on PB. They’re not all immune to anything but indestructible logic. Many civvies are likely to be influenced to vote a certain way by a charismatic personality
Hence why Charisma is important in a political leader. Indeed in many other walks of life too. The sweet spot is where it coincides with integrity, vision and competence. Boy that would be a package.
Example? Not many, obviously. If there were many it wouldn't be what it is. Rare.
I was going to offer up RFK - Snr not Jnr - but what about the Monroe episode? That was tawdry.
Is this a real trend or an algorithm generated one? How often do aircraft undercarriage collapse, is the Boeing one noticeably greater than its past self or its competitors' present selves?
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Weren’t the mortgage rates Truss & Kwarteng’s doing?
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
If polled I would agree Johnson has 'lots of personality' - that's the point of his 'Boris' persona. I wouldn't read too much into the public thinking he is less boring than Starmer as that's self-evident. I wouldn't trust him to look after my dog, let alone the country, and would never vote for him under any circumstances.
But not every voter is a ‘political overthinker, touched by genius’ like so many on PB. They’re not all immune to anything but indestructible logic. Many civvies are likely to be influenced to vote a certain way by a charismatic personality
Hence why Charisma is important in a political leader. Indeed in many other walks of life too. The sweet spot is where it coincides with integrity, vision and competence. Boy that would be a package.
Example? Not many, obviously. If there were many it wouldn't be what it is. Rare.
I was going to offer up RFK - Snr not Jnr - but what about the Monroe episode? That was tawdry.
When I was in my 20s I was pretty obsessed with RFK senior, partly on the back of Schlesinger Robert Kennedy and his times, which is a sublime book but I read much more widely.
To me he was not as clever as his brother but, despite his reputation, nowhere near as cynical either. If he had lived I have no doubt he would have been President in 68 and, in my opinion, a great one too. He really cared about people, especially poor or downtrodden people, in ways his brother frankly didn't. America would have been a radically different country and in my view a much better one.
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
Just watched it. Oh dear. It's like AI doing a crazy fascist Stepford wife!
You know those YouTube apology speeches which you know aren't really sincere, with vocal fry and intensity in the wrong bits? Well it was like that.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Weren’t the mortgage rates Truss & Kwarteng’s doing?
They went up a little more than would have been the case, but the fundamental issue that the developed world has had is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine pushed energy prices up.
This in turn meant inflation was higher.
Which meant Central Banks raised interest rates (and therefore mortgage rates) in order to lower inflation.
I can't think of a single developed world government that has survived this with their popularity intact.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
more anecdata - it's mostly people to hated him to start with and would never have voted for him
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
more anecdata - it's mostly people to hated him to start with and would never have voted for him
My Dad voted enthusiastically for him and hates him now
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
more anecdata - it's mostly people to hated him to start with and would never have voted for him
My Dad voted enthusiastically for him and hates him now
Even the PB village Tory doesn't talk about Mr Johnson's eviction being treasonous any more.
There were two Ironman triathletes at the pool earlier. The partner of one was sitting in the little viewing area by the shallow end. One of the triathletes tapped his swimming cap, which was branded with a 70.3 (half Ironman) race, and said: "I did this on our honeymoon. I told my wife she could organise the wedding, and I'd organise the honeymoon. It just so happened that I chose a place there was an Ironman on, and I sent all my kit in advance."
The woman in the viewing area gave the hardest scowl I've seen in many a year...
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
more anecdata - it's mostly people to hated him to start with and would never have voted for him
Disagree.
My hunch is that a lot of people are impressed with Boris on first encounter- enough, say, to get him over the top in London in 2008. Because the good fairy gave him the Boris Charisma, which is very real.
Unfortunately, the bad fairy made him an utter shit- see the aphorism that the world is divided into people Boris has betrayed and people he will betray in the future.
So he keeps getting the jobs, girls and victories. But then he keeps losing them. Because charisma can get you the first date, but it doesn't work with living with someone for life.
His approach to the Premiership was the same. Which is why he was turfed out. MPs had had enough of trying to defend him.
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
Johnson's big political achievement was harnessing Leave voters in the Red Wall to existing Tory supporters in the Blue Wall. Little remarked is Starmer repeating that trick now. I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour come from third place to win several seats in the Home Counties.
As we are talking about low Tory support BB - before Boris- don't forget it was he that sabotaged the government he was part of.
Breaking: Donald Trump has posted a bond of nearly $92 million in E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The posted bond is exactly $91,630,000.00, which includes a district’s courts common practice of requiring a bond of 110% of the judgement.
Insurance company Chubb underwrote the $91.63 million bond for Donald Trump, which the former president signed on Tuesday, March 5.
Under the terms of the bond, Chubb will only secure the appeal of the $83.3 million judgment, not any future appeals.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by a landslide in the 2019 general election! 😂
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
more anecdata - it's mostly people to hated him to start with and would never have voted for him
Disagree.
My hunch is that a lot of people are impressed with Boris on first encounter- enough, say, to get him over the top in London in 2008. Because the good fairy gave him the Boris Charisma, which is very real.
Unfortunately, the bad fairy made him an utter shit- see the aphorism that the world is divided into people Boris has betrayed and people he will betray in the future.
So he keeps getting the jobs, girls and victories. But then he keeps losing them. Because charisma can get you the first date, but it doesn't work with living with someone for life.
His approach to the Premiership was the same. Which is why he was turfed out. MPs had had enough of trying to defend him.
No-one better than you at analogies. Another perfect one.
But snowing aside, yes I can (at once remove) vouch for the 'Boris' star power. My brother is senior NHS and hosted him for a hospital visit. My brother is also Labour through and through, a BJ 'hater' even, to go all Isam, yet he was blown away. Said he lit up the room.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by a landslide in the 2019 general election! 😂
Oh, and
B
R
E
X
I
T
You have it in 6 lines. I think he's he most malevolent politician the UK has had, Certainly in living memory.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
Was it Churchill who said the MPs on the other side of the chamber are the opposition and the MP's behind you are your enemys?
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
Just watched it. Oh dear. It's like AI doing a crazy fascist Stepford wife!
You know those YouTube apology speeches which you know aren't really sincere, with vocal fry and intensity in the wrong bits? Well it was like that.
It was truly bizarre. I presume her star has now shone and she won't be on the ticket.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Weren’t the mortgage rates Truss & Kwarteng’s doing?
They went up a little more than would have been the case, but the fundamental issue that the developed world has had is that Russia's invasion of Ukraine pushed energy prices up.
This in turn meant inflation was higher.
Which meant Central Banks raised interest rates (and therefore mortgage rates) in order to lower inflation.
I can't think of a single developed world government that has survived this with their popularity intact.
It’s strange that no one puts the case that changing governments probably doesn’t make a difference in that scenario
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by a landslide in the 2019 general election! 😂
Oh, and
B
R
E
X
I
T
You have it in 6 lines. I think he's he most malevolent politician the UK has had, Certainly in living memory.
Just because it takes you 10 minutes longer to get through customs on your way to your mansion on the Cote D'Azur 😂
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
The difference is that Thatcher had been in power for over decade and her removal caused more long-term internal party issues than it did electoral issues.
In contrast the idea that Johnson was electorally dispensable was pure hubris.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by a landslide in the 2019 general election! 😂
Oh, and
B
R
E
X
I
T
Yeah but, the current mayor was damaged goods in 2008, and again in 2012 when he increased his vote share, and Brexit was cheating, and the landslide was only because of Corbyn, and the unpopularity of Brexit.
Look the Tories were in hock to the DUP, polling less than 20%, had just got 8% in the Euro Elections and getting a Brexit deal was considered impossible before Boris took over. The fact that he won a landslide with 43% of the vote six months later, then put to bed the post referendum purgatory before they returned to polling 20% after he quit just shows what a drag on the party he was
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
If polled I would agree Johnson has 'lots of personality' - that's the point of his 'Boris' persona. I wouldn't read too much into the public thinking he is less boring than Starmer as that's self-evident. I wouldn't trust him to look after my dog, let alone the country, and would never vote for him under any circumstances.
But not every voter is a ‘political overthinker, touched by genius’ like so many on PB. They’re not all immune to anything but indestructible logic. Many civvies are likely to be influenced to vote a certain way by a charismatic personality
Hence why Charisma is important in a political leader. Indeed in many other walks of life too. The sweet spot is where it coincides with integrity, vision and competence. Boy that would be a package.
Example? Not many, obviously. If there were many it wouldn't be what it is. Rare.
I was going to offer up RFK - Snr not Jnr - but what about the Monroe episode? That was tawdry.
When I was in my 20s I was pretty obsessed with RFK senior, partly on the back of Schlesinger Robert Kennedy and his times, which is a sublime book but I read much more widely.
To me he was not as clever as his brother but, despite his reputation, nowhere near as cynical either. If he had lived I have no doubt he would have been President in 68 and, in my opinion, a great one too. He really cared about people, especially poor or downtrodden people, in ways his brother frankly didn't. America would have been a radically different country and in my view a much better one.
I have an RFK thing too. I love those clips where he's sticking it to the mobsters. And yes, him in 68 rather than Tricky Dicky, that really is a poignant road not travelled.
I rate LBJ highly too. I'm getting the Caro opus from my dad when he dies. Really looking forward to that. Well the first bit.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
Was it Churchill who said the MPs on the other side of the chamber are the opposition and the MP's behind you are your enemys?
Jim Hacker, though he probably nicked it because it sounds like it could have been around for centuries.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
It wasn’t the “voters” either
The voters didn't get rid of Thatcher or Johnson at a General Election. But they had a pretty big role.
Losing the Eastbourne by-election certainly helped precipitate the challenge to Thatcher and to convince enough colleagues she wouldn't be able to turnit around for a fourth win. And would Johnson have ridden out the Pincher nonsense had he held on to Tiverton & Honiton and Wakefield a few days earlier? I think he probably would.
Tory MPs didn't just ditch them on a whim or because of a particular misstep. MPs forgive rather a lot if you're a winner - rather less if that aura has gone.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
Cameron is a man of the past. He was able to project authority as PM because the world pre 2016 (and which he mastered, until Brexit at least) was very different to what came afterwards.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
The difference is that Thatcher had been in power for over decade and her removal caused more long-term internal party issues than it did electoral issues.
In contrast the idea that Johnson was electorally dispensable was pure hubris.
I think Alan Clark suggested that the Tories took the wrong lesson from 1990- that when in trouble with the voters, the thing to do is dump the leader. And because it worked then, they've been far too keen to leap to that conclusion subsequently.
It has also obscured the Johnson issue. Being really successful at your job probably buys you some leeway behaviour-wise. But even the star player, manager, trader, election winner whoever has to keep to some standards of conduct.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
It wasn’t the “voters” either
In the case of Thatcher, I can only offer the evidence the Conservatives were 10 points behind Neil Kinnock's Labour immediately prior to her ousting and yet with Heseltine leading were tied. Had she still been leader in 1992, I suspect the result would have been different and not to the Conservatives' advantage.
The parallels between her downfall and Johnson's continue - both "won" votes - hers a leadership challenge, his a vote of confidence but with significant numbers not supporting. 152 voted for Heseltine in 1990, 148 voted against the no confidence motion in Johnson in June 2022.
Both Thatcher and Johnson tried to be defiant in the face of what had happened but both were essentially finished.
Some hard figures: £2 million minimum per asylum seeker if 300 sent to Rwanda. More per head if fewer sent and the cost will almost certainly will rise over time.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
If Cameron genuinely had such a good grip of the underlying issues facing the country then he wouldn't come across as so glib and shallow.
It may be sacrilegious to say so but I find him a less serious person than Boris Johnson.
If Sunak wants his numbers to improve he would be wise to hide David Cameron. The contrast is striking.
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Nadine said a while ago the plan is to replace Sunak for Cameron in time for the election!
Wise move. An adult in the room at last. He was the first UK leader to talk intelligently about Gaza without worrying what Eylon Levy might think.
Its a really interesting question what Cameron could have done had he decided not to walk away in 2016. He may not have survived. He may have found the tide of the wilder Brexiteers overwhelming. He would certainly have been damaged by the loss of authority that came from being on the losing side of the argument.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
Cameron is a man of the past. He was able to project authority as PM because the world pre 2016 (and which he mastered, until Brexit at least) was very different to what came afterwards.
"Cameron is a man of the past." Very good. He might have been the future, once
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by landslide in 2019! 😂
Strange, it wasn't the "lefties" who got rid of him, though, was it?
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
The difference is that Thatcher had been in power for over decade and her removal caused more long-term internal party issues than it did electoral issues.
In contrast the idea that Johnson was electorally dispensable was pure hubris.
Yet the net effect may well be the same and it might have made no difference.
After extended periods in office, the Conservatives are facing as big a defeat in 2024 as they were in 1997 (if not bigger). It may have little to do with the leader and more with the way the Party has comported itself in office. Perhaps the hubris is the notion they can do what they like but will be in Government for ever.
A party that was polling over 50% in this same Parliament, now at 18%.
Few will say it, but I genuinely believe (as I said at the time) that removing Boris Johnson was an act of electoral self-sabotage by the Tories on par with Labour’s embrace of a 2nd referendum in 2019.
Of course, there was much outrage over 'partygate', but much of the furore was media-driven and amplified by people who hated Boris quite specifically for his role in Brexit.
I was never convinced it mattered as much for the Tories' 2019 coalition, especially in the long run.
Truss obviously played a role in trashing the Tories' reputation for 'economic competence' but the 'new' politics of the Tories (right on culture, left on economics) was tied to Boris as its carrier in the eyes of the electorate. Removing him seemed like the Tories didn't mean it
Of course, Boris could have squandered everything on his own, but he showed a willingness to slaughter Tory sacred cows and thumb his nose at the Tory establishment in a way that was fundamentally different from Truss (ie from the economic left, not right). I doubt he'd be at 18%
Sunak can't win (in the eyes of 2019 voters). From their perspective, the mere fact he knifed Boris is more meaningful than any of his muddled policy pronouncements.
To them, he represents an establishment that thinks those voters 'got it wrong' with Boris & need to think again.
Sensible' people of course hate Boris's guts -- in a way they don't with Sunak, Hunt, or Cameron. In fact, quite the opposite. But it's precisely that reaction to him that I suspect might have helped Boris ultimately hold a good chunk of his 2019 voters. He wouldn't be at 18%.
In today's volatile politics, loyalty is earned not inherited. One way to build loyalty is to walk over the coals, stick your neck out, take a few arrows. Boris, Corbyn, Farage all have loyal core supporters because they've been seen to bear a level of vitriol for their beliefs.
Voters will forgive a lot for someone they think ultimately does what they believe is right even if they get criticised for it. This I think helps explain Trump. His supporters know he's done wrong but they see him as standing up for them when an easier alternative was available.
We might not like that politics operates this way, but in age of tremendous voter cynicism, driven by a variety of 'betrayals' -- Iraq, the expenses scandal the financial crisis, wage stagnation, the collapse in living standards -- it probably should come as no surprise.
Why is anyone bigging up this lazy good for nothing, sexually incontinent scoundrel?
Even taking into account Truss's five minute Premiership, Johnson was unquestionably the most venal, bone idle, incompetent Prime Minister in my lifetime and beyond.
Johnson was a stooping, shambling, unkemp, chaotic mess. He was an embarrassment to the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of Tory MPs who would make a better fist of being Prime Minister than this arrogant, venal fool. Tugenhadt, Mordaunt and even our own Tissue Price.
Pack this clown back in his box where he belongs.
Because Boris reached parts of the country that Sunak could not.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
Yes, although opposition to him was pretty much cemented anyway, divisive politicians have lots of haters
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
I think it's optimistic to say that Johnson's unpopularity had topped out. Maybe you can argue that those people who personally hated him would continue to hate him (and that's probably true), but I don't think you can ignore the fact that he would have faced the same headwinds any leader would.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
Anecdata but from looking around, there seem to be a lot of people who actively dislike Boris, in a way they do not Rishi, May or even Truss. It is personal, not just political.
Well he drives lefties absolutely crazy because they lost to him (twice) in London and by a landslide in the 2019 general election! 😂
Oh, and
B
R
E
X
I
T
You have it in 6 lines. I think he's he most malevolent politician the UK has had, Certainly in living memory.
Just because it takes you 10 minutes longer to get through customs on your way to your mansion on the Cote D'Azur 😂
......and the small matter of the country dropping 170 billion smackers and 5% of GDP and losing all those beautiful Europeans from our cities and towns
Comments
It's not as if once partygate had blown over there wouldn't have been other nonsense. The circus would have continued. There would have been more Peppa Pig performances, barefaced lies about topics like borders in the Irish sea and no doubt more Jennifer Arcuri style scandals.
He was a wrongun. Not remotely as bad as Trump but the GOP's gradual degradation at the latter's hands points towards the risks to the Tories' moral fibre if they'd kept him on.
I thang yew.
That may well be true, but he'd have at least been hoping for the slightest ray of light in the polling to provide cover for going in May and there is none. I've been fond of the theory, but I think it's a no now.
Oooops.
"An official study of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) ordered by Rishi Sunak amid efforts to stop them being built has instead concluded they are generally popular and effective, with the report initially buried, the Guardian has learned."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/08/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-generally-popular-report-ordered-by-sunak-finds
"Pakistan blasphemy: Student sentenced to death over Whatsapp messages - BBC News" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68511557
Most of the fall in Conservative rating happened under Boris, and even if Pinchergate and being expelled from Parliament for lying hadn't happened, there's no particular reason to think that it wouldn't have continued under him.
Besides, the reason that Truss and Sunak were in pole position to follow Johnson was because he put them there.
That's really the crux of @isam's point, and he is absolutely correct in that assessment.
However... I think there's a slight tendency to forget that bad things would have happened to Boris had he stayed in Office. The inflation that has made pretty much every incumbent government in the developed world unpopular would have happened to him too. Likewise, the drip, drip, drip about his personal morals would have cemented opposition to him.
Over time, leaders tend to become less popular. I don't doubt Johnson would have been on that same glide slope.
But, I fear you are right, and he will.
MSNBC - Turns out America also has coin-unlock shopping carts, too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiX2u9m3QZI
https://jalopnik.com/you-can-thank-rich-folks-for-all-the-clay-colored-cars-1851315920
"Pro-Palestine activists spray and slash University of Cambridge's historic painting of British statesman Lord Balfour who paved the way for a Jewish state in the Middle East | Daily Mail Online" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13174015/Headline-goes-here.html
Not all of that is down to ULEZ, of course - there are many causes of the move away from diesel engines, but the fall in England as a whole was only 35%, which strongly suggests that ULEZ is having the intended effect.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/08/sadiq-khan-hails-remarkable-progress-in-improving-london-air-quality
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/08/we-definitely-messed-up-why-did-google-ai-tool-make-offensive-historical-images
Not a criticism - there IS an election in May in Greater Great Wen.
Except, probably, in Ashfield.
And maybe on Hammersmith Bridge.
As far as I see it it is Starmer and Labour supporters who are trying to bounce Sunak into an election in May that he has not remotely suggested
He has consistently referred to later in the year and the current evidence in the polls is that it would be a landslide Labour win if it was in May
I really do not see how it could be much worse in October November, but irrespective of when it is, the key to Starmer's majority is just how well Reform performs in a GE which is electing a government for 5 years and is not a protest vote
However, it really doesn't matter when it is Starmer will win
Sen. Katie Britt’s response to the State of the Union has drawn its own response — including plenty of barbs across the political spectrum.
The Alabama Republican is seen as a rising star among Senate Republicans and a potential future leader. But her speech, set at her home kitchen, was slammed among many allies of former President Donald Trump. . . .
"She's a bright upcoming star," said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with a smirk. "That's all I got."
"At least she didn't drink water," quipped Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who faced harsh criticism over his drink of the beverage during his own State of the Union response in 2013.
A Britt spokesperson, Sean Ross, responded to the criticism: "Joe Biden angrily screamed for an hour and was roundly praised for a ‘fiery’ speech. Katie Britt passionately made the case on the need for a new direction and is being criticized by the liberal media. Color me surprised."
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/03/08/congress/gop-dems-britts-sotu-response-criticisms-00146024
SSI - Could Katie Britt be the Bobby Jindal of 2024? Back in 2009, the then-Governor of Louisiana was also seen as a rising star in the GOP firmament . . . until HIS widely-ridiculed SOTU response . . . which proved the start of a downward trajectory to political oblivion.
SSI - Part of insidious Taylor Swift / Joe Biden / George Soros / Red China Conspiracy?
This is the default tone of the 'straining for respectability' strand of alt-right commentary. You see it all over Speccie/unHerdland.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/08/sadiq-khan-hails-remarkable-progress-in-improving-london-air-quality
Edit: sorry, another report. But still.
PS Of course, a LTN is really "the sort of traffic calming measure many, many Tory voters like to have in their 1970s and 1980s owner-occupier estates but is the spawn of the Corbynite-Green devil when it happens in someone else's estate so they can't tool past as if externalities don't exist closer than Delta Leonis III".
Ah - @AlsoLei got there first, apologies.
LA Times (June 22, 1988) - It Was the Speech That Ate Atlanta
ATLANTA — “Please. Your time is up.”
That was the message flashed across the TelePrompTer Wednesday night during the marathon speech by Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. The 41-year-old governor, given the publicity plum of the convention, turned his scheduled 15-minute nomination speech into a discourse of at least twice that length.
“Give him the hook,” some delegates chanted. Reports from those inside the convention machinery said that the TelePrompTer was finally turned off, a last-ditch effort to turn off the oratory.
“Nationally televised political suicide” was the consensus--doubly surprising since Clinton had presidential aspirations of his own this year and has been considered a real comer, a self-described “wandering minstrel of the Democratic Party.” . . .
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-07-22-vw-7609-story.html
Even if he were doing as badly in the polls as Sunak, which is doubtful to say the least (Truss wouldn’t have happened, the crazy budget wouldn’t have happened, mortgages wouldn’t have been unaffordable) he has the personality, according to all polls, to regain a lot of lost votes during the campaign. IPSOS, so treasured by poll lovers, had him beating Sir Keir by record margins in this respect. Yet people on here seem to think that having Boris, whom 60% of the public say ‘has lots of personality’ vs Sir Keir who got 22% on that measure is of no advantage compared to Sunak, who the public find as bland as Starmer
That's fanboi talk.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12836717/Mystery-ULEZ-camera-EXPLODES-street-cut-vigilantes-police-launch-probe.html
Multiply that by x10 for politicos.
It's been so long that I reckon it can be rehabilitated as newly fresh and totally acceptable.
Although 'I reckon' is doing the work of several Bulgarian clean-and-jerk Olympic gold medallists there.
There are lots of people who would have seen their mortgage rates increase at the same time as their electricity bills, while their wages were stagnant.
And that was going to happen irrespective of who the leader (or even what coloured rosette they wore), because the major drivers behind the wave of inflation have been global rather than local.
My gut is that Johnson would be doing better in the polls than Sunak, but that he would be facing a very similar shellecking at the polls.
https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1766138389638664444
Cameron actually looks and sounds Prime Ministerial.
Has anyone on PB done this things called "micro-camping", which I ran across this week - never having heard the term before?
It's a little like those small vans turned into campers seen in programmes by people such as George Clark, but usually done using more car-sized-but-upright vehicles such as Citroen Berlingo or Renault Kangoo, or mid-sized vans (or the car versions thereof) such as Ford Transit Connect.
Accessories used might be an awning that is mounted ready to use on a roof-rack, a micro-portaloo, built in or take out cooking setup, and similar. Usually used individually, à deux or à trois.
Here's an interestingly eccentric gent from North Notts (Youtube Channel: Nottinghamshire Madness) describing his setup:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi1D7R7qNXs
There are some really strange devices available, such as a popup tent that lives on the roof rack and is carried in tandem with a collapsible ladder. *
Intriguing. Of course most PBers will be in a **** hotel.
*https://tentbox.com/
Example? Not many, obviously. If there were many it wouldn't be what it is. Rare.
I was going to offer up RFK - Snr not Jnr - but what about the Monroe episode? That was tawdry.
eg Piccie:
To me he was not as clever as his brother but, despite his reputation, nowhere near as cynical either. If he had lived I have no doubt he would have been President in 68 and, in my opinion, a great one too. He really cared about people, especially poor or downtrodden people, in ways his brother frankly didn't. America would have been a radically different country and in my view a much better one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68515515
Plot twist: 1950s and 60s.
This in turn meant inflation was higher.
Which meant Central Banks raised interest rates (and therefore mortgage rates) in order to lower inflation.
I can't think of a single developed world government that has survived this with their popularity intact.
There were two Ironman triathletes at the pool earlier. The partner of one was sitting in the little viewing area by the shallow end. One of the triathletes tapped his swimming cap, which was branded with a 70.3 (half Ironman) race, and said: "I did this on our honeymoon. I told my wife she could organise the wedding, and I'd organise the honeymoon. It just so happened that I chose a place there was an Ironman on, and I sent all my kit in advance."
The woman in the viewing area gave the hardest scowl I've seen in many a year...
My hunch is that a lot of people are impressed with Boris on first encounter- enough, say, to get him over the top in London in 2008. Because the good fairy gave him the Boris Charisma, which is very real.
Unfortunately, the bad fairy made him an utter shit- see the aphorism that the world is divided into people Boris has betrayed and people he will betray in the future.
So he keeps getting the jobs, girls and victories. But then he keeps losing them. Because charisma can get you the first date, but it doesn't work with living with someone for life.
His approach to the Premiership was the same. Which is why he was turfed out. MPs had had enough of trying to defend him.
As we are talking about low Tory support BB - before Boris- don't forget it was he that sabotaged the government he was part of.
Oh, and
B
R
E
X
I
T
Rather like Margaret Thatcher, three times a winner and yet still done in by her own MPs.
But snowing aside, yes I can (at once remove) vouch for the 'Boris' star power. My brother is senior NHS and hosted him for a hospital visit. My brother is also Labour through and through, a BJ 'hater' even, to go all Isam, yet he was blown away. Said he lit up the room.
And yet, and yet, none of his successors came close to having his grip of the issues facing this country or the intelligence to see past the slogans to the underlying issues.
In contrast the idea that Johnson was electorally dispensable was pure hubris.
Look the Tories were in hock to the DUP, polling less than 20%, had just got 8% in the Euro Elections and getting a Brexit deal was considered impossible before Boris took over. The fact that he won a landslide with 43% of the vote six months later, then put to bed the post referendum purgatory before they returned to polling 20% after he quit just shows what a drag on the party he was
I rate LBJ highly too. I'm getting the Caro opus from my dad when he dies. Really looking forward to that. Well the first bit.
Losing the Eastbourne by-election certainly helped precipitate the challenge to Thatcher and to convince enough colleagues she wouldn't be able to turnit around for a fourth win. And would Johnson have ridden out the Pincher nonsense had he held on to Tiverton & Honiton and Wakefield a few days earlier? I think he probably would.
Tory MPs didn't just ditch them on a whim or because of a particular misstep. MPs forgive rather a lot if you're a winner - rather less if that aura has gone.
He was able to project authority as PM because the world pre 2016 (and which he mastered, until Brexit at least) was very different to what came afterwards.
It has also obscured the Johnson issue. Being really successful at your job probably buys you some leeway behaviour-wise. But even the star player, manager, trader, election winner whoever has to keep to some standards of conduct.
Johnson didn't.
The parallels between her downfall and Johnson's continue - both "won" votes - hers a leadership challenge, his a vote of confidence but with significant numbers not supporting. 152 voted for Heseltine in 1990, 148 voted against the no confidence motion in Johnson in June 2022.
Both Thatcher and Johnson tried to be defiant in the face of what had happened but both were essentially finished.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-rwanda-plan-asylum-seekers-could-cost-more-than-600-mln-pounds-2024-03-01/
It may be sacrilegious to say so but I find him a less serious person than Boris Johnson.
Very good. He might have been the future, once
After extended periods in office, the Conservatives are facing as big a defeat in 2024 as they were in 1997 (if not bigger). It may have little to do with the leader and more with the way the Party has comported itself in office. Perhaps the hubris is the notion they can do what they like but will be in Government for ever.