No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Did Barack Obama say?
1. "As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
Or
2. "As President, I will try my best to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
What on earth has Obama got to do with this? We were discussing whether Boris Johnson broke his promise. It's plain as a pikestaff that he did, the only question remaining is whether he lied cynically when he made it, or whether instead he was incredibly naive to make it.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
Just as in 2017 the elements were in place for Labour's extraordinary rise during the campaign (easy to spot with hindsight of course), there is a sense that this campaign is also unpredictable and could run away in an odd direction. Of those odd directions, it seems to me, the most, though not very, likely is the Establishment, Remain, anti Boris, anti Tory, anti Corbyn and non extreme left vote coalescing around the extremely personable Jo Swinson and the LDs.
One might well ask: Where else is there for them to go that might actually change anything?
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he’d not been a few seats short of a majority at the time he made the promise, leaving ‘no ifs no buts’ would have worked, but he also chose to expel a number of MPs making it even harder to leave. That sounds a bit wrong to me, have I misunderstood how the ‘no ifs or buts’ thing works?
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Did Barack Obama say?
1. "As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
Or
2. "As President, I will try my best to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
What on earth has Obama got to do with this? We were discussing whether Boris Johnson broke his promise. It's plain as a pikestaff that he did, the only question remaining is whether he lied cynically when he made it, or whether instead he was incredibly naive to make it.
Or whether he acted with integrity and was blocked by duplicitous MPs who should be replaced at the election.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
Positively Trumpian behaviour from a minority here today.
The latest Met Office seasonal forecast has been released. Weather in December likely to be mild and wet with westerlies bringing frontal systems in off the Atlantic.
Consequently widespread snow and ice not likely to be a hazard for voters. Higher risk (though still low that it will directly interfere with the election) of a strong Atlantic storm and/or flooding.
For November-January the forecast probability of temperatures being in the coldest quintile are 5%, and 50-55% that they will be in the warmest quintile.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
All wargamed, right?
But anyway it doesn't really matter. He hasn't been penalised for it (yet, as @williamglenn points out but I have my doubts he will be), the Cons are still miles ahead in the opinion polls, we are likely to have an election in six weeks, and the Cons are well placed to get an overall majority. And then of course we leave the EU with his deal I presume.
The only thing I do wonder is about the self-esteem of people like Mark Francois, and indeed our very own @HYUFD who realise they have been played for fools to get Boris to this position in the first place. But as I said, it is not a particularly bad position. All's fair etc, and the reputational damage to Francois and @HY as they now look like idiots, is but a small price to pay.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
If I buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, he is responsible for achieving that. If he told me he will do what he can to achieve that date, he is responsible for doing what he can.
The latest Met Office seasonal forecast has been released. Weather in December likely to be mild and wet with westerlies bringing frontal systems in off the Atlantic.
Consequently widespread snow and ice not likely to be a hazard for voters. Higher risk (though still low that it will directly interfere with the election) of a strong Atlantic storm and/or flooding.
For November-January the forecast probability of temperatures being in the coldest quintile are 5%, and 50-55% that they will be in the warmest quintile.
Well apparently half of the site thinks campaign pledges need to include the phrase "try my best" before each of them!
Well yes actually. They need to reflect reality. Trust is a precious commodity that is squandered at the parties' peril. Boris' didn't do that. But as I just pointed out to @Philip_Thompson he is where he wants to be so for him at the moment all is well. Of course what pledges might be made in future and how they might then be interpreted who can say. Corbyn pledges not to nationalise Tesco and Lidl, Boris pledges not to reintroduce workhouses, you know the thing.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he’d not been a few seats short of a majority at the time he made the promise, leaving ‘no ifs no buts’ would have worked, but he also chose to expel a number of MPs making it even harder to leave. That sounds a bit wrong to me, have I misunderstood how the ‘no ifs or buts’ thing works?
Yes you have.
The MPs were told in advance that they had to honour the pledge their party leader was literally just elected on or they were be expelled - they did not, they were expelled. Actions have consequences and they were expelled after betraying the whip not before it.
What on earth has Obama got to do with this? We were discussing whether Boris Johnson broke his promise. It's plain as a pikestaff that he did, the only question remaining is whether he lied cynically when he made it, or whether instead he was incredibly naive to make it.
Or whether he acted with integrity and was blocked by duplicitous MPs who should be replaced at the election.
Boris = Integrity Everyone else = Duplicitous
History might want to have a word with you about that.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Did Barack Obama say?
1. "As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
Or
2. "As President, I will try my best to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
What on earth has Obama got to do with this? We were discussing whether Boris Johnson broke his promise. It's plain as a pikestaff that he did, the only question remaining is whether he lied cynically when he made it, or whether instead he was incredibly naive to make it.
Or whether he acted with integrity and was blocked by duplicitous MPs who should be replaced at the election.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
Just as in 2017 the elements were in place for Labour's extraordinary rise during the campaign (easy to spot with hindsight of course), there is a sense that this campaign is also unpredictable and could run away in an odd direction. Of those odd directions, it seems to me, the most, though not very, likely is the Establishment, Remain, anti Boris, anti Tory, anti Corbyn and non extreme left vote coalescing around the extremely personable Jo Swinson and the LDs.
One might well ask: Where else is there for them to go that might actually change anything?
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Did Barack Obama say?
1. "As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
Or
2. "As President, I will try my best to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
What on earth has Obama got to do with this? We were discussing whether Boris Johnson broke his promise. It's plain as a pikestaff that he did, the only question remaining is whether he lied cynically when he made it, or whether instead he was incredibly naive to make it.
Politicians make pledges to do things in election campaigns all the time and are then stopped in office. Obama promised to close down Guantanamo Bay. No one held it against him because he did everything in his power to.
Johnson imbued his pledge with dramatic colour and he made it personal. He did this for a couple of reasons. (1) To tickle the shires and secure the PM job. (2) To sideline Farage and establish himself as Mr True Leave. It worked on both counts. So, given he has broken this PERSONAL pledge, he should now be suffering PERSONALLY for it. It's only right. But he isn't. It's all GE talk instead. However if he were tied up for months, no Brexit, no GE, no resignation, he would (probably) start to pay the price for his naked and cynical self-interest. This is my point. It would be a benign outcome.
It is also why the Benn Act, from this "spike Blondie" perspective, was an error. Much better to have made him own the choice for 31 Oct between WTO crash out and an extension. Both would have hurt his subsequent GE chances big time. But, OK, the MPs who passed the Act feared (IMO wrongly) that he would be prepared to crash us out with no deal. So they acted and put country first. IMO they should not have done so.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
If I buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, he is responsible for achieving that. If he told me he will do what he can to achieve that date, he is responsible for doing what he can.
They are simply different promises.
If you buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, but then an Act of Parliament makes it illegal to deliver sofas prior to November then is he still responsible or is that force majeure?
The latest Met Office seasonal forecast has been released. Weather in December likely to be mild and wet with westerlies bringing frontal systems in off the Atlantic.
Consequently widespread snow and ice not likely to be a hazard for voters. Higher risk (though still low that it will directly interfere with the election) of a strong Atlantic storm and/or flooding.
For November-January the forecast probability of temperatures being in the coldest quintile are 5%, and 50-55% that they will be in the warmest quintile.
So lots of piss and wind forecast for the election campaign. No surprise there then.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
All wargamed, right?
But anyway it doesn't really matter. He hasn't been penalised for it (yet, as @williamglenn points out but I have my doubts he will be), the Cons are still miles ahead in the opinion polls, we are likely to have an election in six weeks, and the Cons are well placed to get an overall majority. And then of course we leave the EU with his deal I presume.
The only thing I do wonder is about the self-esteem of people like Mark Francois, and indeed our very own @HYUFD who realise they have been played for fools to get Boris to this position in the first place. But as I said, it is not a particularly bad position. All's fair etc, and the reputational damage to Francois and @HY as they now look like idiots, is but a small price to pay.
To say Francois now looks like an idiot implies that he didn't before.
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
'Integrity' is putting it rather strongly, but, yes, he tried very hard to honour it, to the extent of shafting NI Unionists and caving in to the EU on everything at the very last moment in order to get a deal. But really, it shouldn't be hard to accept that he didn't honour it and that he was promising something he knew, or should have known, he couldn't deliver. Certainly everyone else knew, which is why more honest leadership candidates left themselves wriggle room.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
Boris was sacked twice for lying. Firstly in 1988 from The Times over fabricating quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather), and then in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
Well apparently half of the site thinks campaign pledges need to include the phrase "try my best" before each of them!
Well yes actually. They need to reflect reality. Trust is a precious commodity that is squandered at the parties' peril. Boris' didn't do that. But as I just pointed out to @Philip_Thompson he is where he wants to be so for him at the moment all is well. Of course what pledges might be made in future and how they might then be interpreted who can say. Corbyn pledges not to nationalise Tesco and Lidl, Boris pledges not to reintroduce workhouses, you know the thing.
"Campaign pledge" is up there with "parliament's request for an extension" as disingenuous bullshit.
As if he hasn't repeated the line several times, without equivocation, since becoming PM.
If you buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, but then an Act of Parliament makes it illegal to deliver sofas prior to November then is he still responsible or is that force majeure?
Yes, large parts of the west and south-west underwater from Atlantic storms and high winds.
Even you might enjoy a couple of frosty, sunny days after a few weeks of that.
Here's an example of real-life practical impacts - Newton Abbot racecourse inspects tomorrow for Thursday's meeting. If the meeting lost it will be the third successive fixture lost to the weather and they lost one of their lucrative June evening meetings.
How long does a business like that survive if the global warming about which you seem so happy continues to have an impact?
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Did Barack Obama say?
1. "As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
Or
2. "As President, I will try my best to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
What on earth has Obama got to do with this? We were discussing whether Boris Johnson broke his promise. It's plain as a pikestaff that he did, the only question remaining is whether he lied cynically when he made it, or whether instead he was incredibly naive to make it.
The question is ‘Does it matter?’
Not in the short term. As we are seeing, and as per my replies above.
But in the longer term? Yes, I think it does. Because at some stage Jeremy Corbyn or some other hard left Labour type is going to pledge something or pledge not to do something and will feel entitled to do so because pledges don't matter and just let the opposition (the Cons at that point) try to whine about it.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
All wargamed, right?
But anyway it doesn't really matter. He hasn't been penalised for it (yet, as @williamglenn points out but I have my doubts he will be), the Cons are still miles ahead in the opinion polls, we are likely to have an election in six weeks, and the Cons are well placed to get an overall majority. And then of course we leave the EU with his deal I presume.
The only thing I do wonder is about the self-esteem of people like Mark Francois, and indeed our very own @HYUFD who realise they have been played for fools to get Boris to this position in the first place. But as I said, it is not a particularly bad position. All's fair etc, and the reputational damage to Francois and @HY as they now look like idiots, is but a small price to pay.
To say Francois now looks like an idiot implies that he didn't before.
That is a very good question. In simple electoral terms, clearly not in the short-term; he's got away with it (in fact as we can see the basic reality is being denied). However, we are going to get a repeat performance next June with the extension to the transition, and it may be a factor then.
Politicians make pledges to do things in election campaigns all the time and are then stopped in office. Obama promised to close down Guantanamo Bay. No one held it against him because he did everything in his power to.
Johnson imbued his pledge with dramatic colour and he made it personal. He did this for a couple of reasons. (1) To tickle the shires and secure the PM job. (2) To sideline Farage and establish himself as Mr True Leave. It worked on both counts. So, given he has broken this PERSONAL pledge, he should now be suffering PERSONALLY for it. It's only right. But he isn't. It's all GE talk instead. However if he were tied up for months, no Brexit, no GE, no resignation, he would (probably) start to pay the price for his naked and cynical self-interest. This is my point. It would be a benign outcome.
It is also why the Benn Act, from this "spike Blondie" perspective, was an error. Much better to have made him own the choice for 31 Oct between WTO crash out and an extension. Both would have hurt his subsequent GE chances big time. But, OK, the MPs who passed the Act feared (IMO wrongly) that he would be prepared to crash us out with no deal. So they acted and put country first. IMO they should not have done so.
Boris describes table tennis as "wiff-waff". He would imbibe an invite for afternoon tea with dramatic colour. It is just the way he talks.
Barack Obama personally pledged to close down Guanatanamo Bay. He was blocked by Republicans. That doesn't mean Obama lied. It just means he was blocked. Everyone understands that political pledges are limited by the political process, but expect politicians to do everything in their power to fulfil them. Boris did that. If politicians want to prolong our international negotiations for six months to make a political opponent look bad, the public will rightly hold it against them.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Politicos with an axe to grind heard 1.
The voters heard 2.
Yep. I am afraid that people like Richard Nabavi have been believing their own spin for too long. They have lost sight of how this is all playing out because they are so desperate for Johnson and Brexit to fail.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
If I buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, he is responsible for achieving that. If he told me he will do what he can to achieve that date, he is responsible for doing what he can.
They are simply different promises.
With all the pointless anger energy and righteous indignation on both sides of 'he promised to' 'he tried' 'he did his best' discussion. I suggest stepping away and answering a different question:
Why are the public fed up with all politicians, the dissembling, the evasion and the downright Vazeline soaked law bending hypocrisy that politicians employ?
The 'he didn't die in a ditch' argument has loosers aplenty. They are the ones on both sides that continue an insignificant and pointless argument in a true politicians style.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Exactly!
Do everything I can goes without saying.
To be somewhat pedantic none of them said they'd rather be dead in a ditch that see what they'd promised not happening. I'm afraid Boris is somewhat given to flowery statements which bear little relation to the actuality. Straight bananas anyone?
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Did Barack Obama say?
1. "As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
Or
2. "As President, I will try my best to close down the detention facility at Guantanamo."
What on earth has Obama got to do with this? We were discussing whether Boris Johnson broke his promise. It's plain as a pikestaff that he did, the only question remaining is whether he lied cynically when he made it, or whether instead he was incredibly naive to make it.
Or whether he acted with integrity and was blocked by duplicitous MPs who should be replaced at the election.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
If I buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, he is responsible for achieving that. If he told me he will do what he can to achieve that date, he is responsible for doing what he can.
They are simply different promises.
With all the pointless anger energy and righteous indignation on both sides of 'he promised to' 'he tried' 'he did his best' discussion. I suggest stepping away and answering a different question:
Why are the public fed up with all politicians, the dissembling, the evasion and the downright Vazeline soaked law bending hypocrisy that politicians employ?
The 'he didn't die in a ditch' argument has loosers aplenty. They are the ones on both sides that continue an insignificant and pointless argument in a true politicians style.
Or another question. Why do voters continually rewards politicians for lying and penalise the ones who tell them the truth? And then say all politicians are the same!
Well they wouldnt be if we elected the ones who are willing to tell us what we dont want to hear.
317-325 looks about right for the Tories, to me. I'd buy Labour a bit. Sell Lib Dems big time.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
I'd put the LDs as favourites to win seats like Wimbledon, Finchley, Guildford, St Albans, Putney, etc.
St Albans is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't bear repeating. I'd say it's an 85% chance for the LDs. Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most. Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance. Guilford. 15% chance Putney. 5% chance.
Are those figures based on anything in particular, Mr RCS, or just an inspired hunch?
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
If you buy a sofa from a shop and the manager promises he will deliver the sofa by Oct 31st regardless, but then an Act of Parliament makes it illegal to deliver sofas prior to November then is he still responsible or is that force majeure?
Oh for heaven's sake.
Despite protestations, that is a perfectly reasonable point. He's damned if he does (Lawbreaker) and damned if he doesn't (Promise breaker). Furthermore Boris as repeatedly offered the customers a 100% refund if they want one by offering a General Election multiple times. What you can't help noticing is that the opposition are wanting him to remain Prime Minister despite the routes they have to install someone else, with or without an election.
Yes, large parts of the west and south-west underwater from Atlantic storms and high winds.
Even you might enjoy a couple of frosty, sunny days after a few weeks of that.
Here's an example of real-life practical impacts - Newton Abbot racecourse inspects tomorrow for Thursday's meeting. If the meeting lost it will be the third successive fixture lost to the weather and they lost one of their lucrative June evening meetings.
How long does a business like that survive if the global warming about which you seem so happy continues to have an impact?
I don't know how racing survives at all when their town centre courses are worth a fortune as venues for combined retail parks and/or thousands of new houses.
The lib dems I have been speaking to honestly believe they are on the verge of something monumental...just saying
40 seats sounds wildly optimistic to me.
Just as in 2017 the elements were in place for Labour's extraordinary rise during the campaign (easy to spot with hindsight of course), there is a sense that this campaign is also unpredictable and could run away in an odd direction. Of those odd directions, it seems to me, the most, though not very, likely is the Establishment, Remain, anti Boris, anti Tory, anti Corbyn and non extreme left vote coalescing around the extremely personable Jo Swinson and the LDs.
One might well ask: Where else is there for them to go that might actually change anything?
^^^ This is a really good post ^^^
It is a good post. I am certainly not "Establishment" ( I think that applies more to two twits with the initials BJ and JRM), and certainly not instinctively Anti-Tory (used to be one), but all the other things apply. I will be voting LD, and many other people I know who were once Conservative voters will do the same. The CINO Party cannot be rewarded for what it has done.
Richard_Tyndall said: "Yep. I am afraid that people like Richard Nabavi have been believing their own spin for too long. They have lost sight of how this is all playing out because they are so desperate for Johnson and Brexit to fail."
I`ve thought this for a while. Brexit derangement syndrome is evident at both ends of the leave - remain spectrum of thought. I`m unusual in that I genuinely was on the fence over leave/remain and so can see the cognitive dissonance on both sides.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
Boris was sacked twice for lying. Firstly in 1988 from The Times over fabricating quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather), and then in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
A criminal offence would have been chalked off after 15 years, let alone 31 years.....
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
Boris was sacked twice for lying. Firstly in 1988 from The Times over fabricating quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather), and then in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
And Cameron allegedly took drugs and may or may not have allegedly shagged a dead pig at university but that's got nothing to do with his time in office, nor does Boris's history have anything to do with his time in office.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Politicos with an axe to grind heard 1.
The voters heard 2.
Yep. I am afraid that people like Richard Nabavi have been believing their own spin for too long. They have lost sight of how this is all playing out because they are so desperate for Johnson and Brexit to fail.
Richard the clips of Boris pledging to die in a ditch or deliver Brexit do or die and then getting away scot free will be playing to History and Politics students for decades and will form an important part of the socio-political history of our period. It transcends the immediate electoral gain (which seems unambiguous in the case of Boris) and I believe has broader implications for our polity.
My first post today was to make the observation of how surprised I was at the fact that Leavers don't care that he lied but reading the comments of the folk on here, not all stupid, illiterate fools, apparently, has been extremely interesting and quite eye-opening.
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Your spinning really is heroic. Tell me, which of the following two statements is true?
1. Boris promised, repeatedly and prominently, that we'd leave the EU on the 31st October, do-or-die, no ifs or buts, come what may.
2, Boris promised he'd do his best to ensure we'd leave the EU on the 31st October.
Politicos with an axe to grind heard 1.
The voters heard 2.
Yep. I am afraid that people like Richard Nabavi have been believing their own spin for too long. They have lost sight of how this is all playing out because they are so desperate for Johnson and Brexit to fail.
What utter tosh. Boris said 1, he didn't say 2. What's more, when people repeatedly pointed out that he was promising something he couldn't deliver, he rubbished that and repeated his promise, do or die. Dishonest, much? Or spectacularly stupid?
As for my spin, why should I want Brexit to fail? I want it to succeed, which is why I supported May's deal and would even, if I were an MP, vote for the Boris deal, even though it is clearly inferior. If Brexit is going to succeed, or at least not be a complete disaster, then we are going to need to agree an FTA with the EU by the end of the transition period, which is not possible in the eleven months between the likely start and the end of 2020, and therefore he will need to request an extension by June. Therefore the issue of Boris's honesty on pledges of this sort is going to be a key factor.
I suspect that this has been sorted now, but the Guardian has this 'Fire chiefs have made an urgent public appeal for a high-rise cherry picker to help rescue a man stuck upside down more than 80 metres (270ft) up a chimney.' Apparently the chap's been up there since the early hours.
I have just been looking at Labour Majorities in london and a lot of them are vast. In some seats where you would think the Lib dems may have a sniff they polled in the hundreds last time versus majs of 30k
Yes it's in the peripheries and West Country that the LDs have the best prospects. London itself is pretty solidly Labour.
Other than St Ives, I would have thought the West Country would be far from easy territory for the libdems.
Cheltenham? Wells? Bath? Even the Cotswolds if its Blimpish MP cooperates.
I think they'll do OK, but it's outer London and surrounds that offer most chances.
Bath is a good call.
I'm not sure the Cotswolds count as the West Country
The Lib Dems already hold Bath...
I'm not sure even the most LD-sceptic is predicting them to lose seats they already hold (except North Norfolk if Norman Lamb is standing down?).
In terms of gains, I'd only say they're favourites in Sheffield Hallam, Richmond Park and Cheltenham. Maybe St Albans and Lewes at a push. I think St Ives will be a tough nut to crack, despite the small majority.
There is talk of Zac Goldsmith moving to Sam Gymiahs seat
Sam Gymiah has a majority of 23,914 in East Surrey. I wonder if Zac can lose that to a LibDem. He lost his majority of 23,015 in Richmond Park to Sarah Olney (majority 1,872) in the Richmond Park by election in 2016 so he certainly has the talent to do so.
East Surrey is not Richmond. Also Sam is not well liked in the constituency even with that majority
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
ersuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
It isn't a better deal for the EU, given there is more risk for them in Northern Ireland being able to vote out every four years, the UK can avoid LPF if it doesn't sign an FTA, and Northern Ireland is clearly a better place to invest than the member state next door.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
I have just been looking at Labour Majorities in london and a lot of them are vast. In some seats where you would think the Lib dems may have a sniff they polled in the hundreds last time versus majs of 30k
Yes it's in the peripheries and West Country that the LDs have the best prospects. London itself is pretty solidly Labour.
Other than St Ives, I would have thought the West Country would be far from easy territory for the libdems.
Cheltenham? Wells? Bath? Even the Cotswolds if its Blimpish MP cooperates.
I think they'll do OK, but it's outer London and surrounds that offer most chances.
Bath is a good call.
I'm not sure the Cotswolds count as the West Country
The Lib Dems already hold Bath...
I'm not sure even the most LD-sceptic is predicting them to lose seats they already hold (except North Norfolk if Norman Lamb is standing down?).
In terms of gains, I'd only say they're favourites in Sheffield Hallam, Richmond Park and Cheltenham. Maybe St Albans and Lewes at a push. I think St Ives will be a tough nut to crack, despite the small majority.
There is talk of Zac Goldsmith moving to Sam Gymiahs seat
Sam Gymiah has a majority of 23,914 in East Surrey. I wonder if Zac can lose that to a LibDem. He lost his majority of 23,015 in Richmond Park to Sarah Olney (majority 1,872) in the Richmond Park by election in 2016 so he certainly has the talent to do so.
Surrey is certainly in a Yellow mood ...
The southern half of it probably is. Runnymede and Spelthorne are a lot more Brexity.
Look at the locals..what hurt the Tories was the massive migration of its supporters to residents associations...if they come back at a GE then they may be ok.
I suspect that this has been sorted now, but the Guardian has this 'Fire chiefs have made an urgent public appeal for a high-rise cherry picker to help rescue a man stuck upside down more than 80 metres (270ft) up a chimney.' Apparently the chap's been up there since the early hours.
There is a live update on the Carlisle News and Star website.
Boris describes table tennis as "wiff-waff". He would imbibe an invite for afternoon tea with dramatic colour. It is just the way he talks.
Barack Obama personally pledged to close down Guanatanamo Bay. He was blocked by Republicans. That doesn't mean Obama lied. It just means he was blocked. Everyone understands that political pledges are limited by the political process, but expect politicians to do everything in their power to fulfil them. Boris did that. If politicians want to prolong our international negotiations for six months to make a political opponent look bad, the public will rightly hold it against them.
If Obama escaped political pain for breaking his Guantanamo pledge then he should not have done. Just as Johnson should not be off the hook for breaking this one on delivering Brexit by 31 Oct.
And, yes, Johnson's language is habitually loose. But this does not mean he should be held to lower standards than other politicians.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
Not true. The deal they offerred to May did not have any consent mechanism, did not have Northern Ireland in the UK tariffs regime and signed the UK up to LPF requirements.
Keith Vaz to be denied a former member's pass. That's pretty strong. Could they have recommended that he was expelled rather than suspended? Seems a shame that the GE will save him from a recall petition.
Will he be able to stand as a Labour candidate in the GE?
Topping said: "My first post today was to make the observation of how surprised I was at the fact that Leavers don't care that he lied but reading the comments of the folk on here, not all stupid, illiterate fools, apparently, has been extremely interesting and quite eye-opening"
Firstly, even if you accept that Boris should be castigated for failing to exit by 31/10 why say he lied? He may have just made an error.
Secondly, all politicans lie don`t they? Corbyn keeps telling us he wants a GE!
Given how Boris behaves when he doesn’t have a majority, the last thing I want is for him to have one, let alone a large one.
But I am probably in a minority with that view. The voters are prepared to reward politicians with no integrity. So be it.
This is one election where I want both main parties to lose heavily. Fat chance. And even though I will likely vote Lib Dem (or possibly Green) I have strong reservations about their revoke policy.
And then we have all of 2020 to go through the same psychodrama over what happens at the end of the transition period. Bloody hell!
In other news last week I helped a farmer acquire a cow. Probably the most useful thing I’ve done this year.
Guildford is still 44% lead with a massive Tory majority. A lot depends on the new Tory candidate but I'd say its more 50/50 than a certain LD gain.
1. UNS says:
Tory hold
2. Remainy?
Surprisingly
3. Local elections?
LD win on a big increased vote share
4. The squeeze
Not so great.
rcs1000 says Con Hold, but LDs get a decent second place (still 5-7,000 votes off the lead mind)
Why remain surprisingly?
Re local elections - There were special circumstances. Even Tories weren't voting Tory and the Mole Valley Tories and Guildford Tories weren't getting on and there are a few Mole Valley wards in the Guildford Borough. There has a been a fair bit of scandal re the Tories in Guildford. I won't go into the details here (long and boring), but the main gainers were independent groups, but they didn't have numbers so LDs did well also and it is a LD/Ind council, but mainly LD.
To give a flavour in the early days of the on going disruption, a by election was held in a seat the Tories had never lost. It was in the Mole Valley constituency, but Guildford Borough. Mole Valley Tories put up the candidate and the Guildford Tories refused to help. LDs won with 70ish percent. LD winner and Tory candidate then both defected to Indies!
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
Boris was sacked twice for lying. Firstly in 1988 from The Times over fabricating quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather), and then in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
And Cameron allegedly took drugs and may or may not have allegedly shagged a dead pig at university but that's got nothing to do with his time in office, nor does Boris's history have anything to do with his time in office.
I dont have a problem with MPs having taken drugs as long as they are not hypocritical over it and vote for longer sentences ala M Gove.
Call me old fashioned but I do think shagging dead pigs should disqualify someone from being PM, if just for potential blackmail by foreign powers reasons.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk. Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
Boris's opponents said Boris would get no deal, had no intention of getting a deal and was only interested in pushing for No Deal.
Who will history paint as the liars?
Boris, of course, because he got his deal by caving in on the question of the border in the Irish Sea. Those who thought he wouldn't get a deal were arguably naive in believing his promise that he'd never do that.
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether he would have crashed us out with no deal if the Benn Act hadn't closed off that option. I don't pretend to know the answer to that.
Guildford is still 44% lead with a massive Tory majority. A lot depends on the new Tory candidate but I'd say its more 50/50 than a certain LD gain.
1. UNS says:
Tory hold
2. Remainy?
Surprisingly
3. Local elections?
LD win on a big increased vote share
4. The squeeze
Not so great.
rcs1000 says Con Hold, but LDs get a decent second place (still 5-7,000 votes off the lead mind)
Why remain surprisingly?
Re local elections - There were special circumstances. Even Tories weren't voting Tory and the Mole Valley Tories and Guildford Tories weren't getting on and there are a few Mole Valley wards in the Guildford Borough. There has a been a fair bit of scandal re the Tories in Guildford. I won't go into the details here (long and boring), but the main gainers were independent groups, but they didn't have numbers so LDs did well also and it is a LD/Ind council, but mainly LD.
To give a flavour in the early days of the on going disruption, a by election was held in a seat the Tories had never lost. It was in the Mole Valley constituency, but Guildford Borough. Mole Valley Tories put up the candidate and the Guildford Tories refused to help. LDs won with 70ish percent. LD winner and Tory candidate then both defected to Indies!
What fun.
I would have put the LDs as clear favourite in Guildford.
If they cant win a seat like that, significantly remain, held in the past, and with good organisation on the ground, then the Remain surge isn't going to get very far...
Boris describes table tennis as "wiff-waff". He would imbibe an invite for afternoon tea with dramatic colour. It is just the way he talks.
Barack Obama personally pledged to close down Guanatanamo Bay. He was blocked by Republicans. That doesn't mean Obama lied. It just means he was blocked. Everyone understands that political pledges are limited by the political process, but expect politicians to do everything in their power to fulfil them. Boris did that. If politicians want to prolong our international negotiations for six months to make a political opponent look bad, the public will rightly hold it against them.
If Obama escaped political pain for breaking his Guantanamo pledge then he should not have done. Just as Johnson should not be off the hook for breaking this one on delivering Brexit by 31 Oct.
And, yes, Johnson's language is habitually loose. But this does not mean he should be held to lower standards than other politicians.
That's a rogue's charter.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems had plenty of things they pledged to do in 2010 and half of them did not happen. Why? They did not have a majority and other parties blocked them. The same goes for promises from every President with an opposition Congress.
Boris's opponents said Boris would get no deal, had no intention of getting a deal and was only interested in pushing for No Deal.
Who will history paint as the liars?
We have said this before. We didn't expect him to cave in so thoroughly and revert to something he himself said no British Prime Minister could ever sign up to.
That was our bad. We got wrapped up in the hype and didn't think that he could be quite so shameless.
And I think history will paint him as a gigantic liar fwiw.
Topping said: "My first post today was to make the observation of how surprised I was at the fact that Leavers don't care that he lied but reading the comments of the folk on here, not all stupid, illiterate fools, apparently, has been extremely interesting and quite eye-opening"
The reason why Boris is going to be forgiven for this is that the electorate have wised up to what is going on. The Tories are trying their damndest to get us out of the EU. The Labour Party have managed to demonise "no deal" and refuse to vote for any deal that represents brexit.
If I, as someone who wants this whole shit-fest Revoked can see this, then it shows the level of Brexit Derangement Syndrome on the Remainer side.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk. Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007 "In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005 "We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
Boris's opponents said Boris would get no deal, had no intention of getting a deal and was only interested in pushing for No Deal.
Who will history paint as the liars?
We have said this before. We didn't expect him to cave in so thoroughly and revert to something he himself said no British Prime Minister could ever sign up to.
That was our bad. We got wrapped up in the hype and didn't think that he could be quite so shameless.
And I think history will paint him as a gigantic liar fwiw.
Nah. Hero of Brexit, who led his people to the sunlit uplands......
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver oorries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
Boris was sacked twice for lying. Firstly in 1988 from The Times over fabricating quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather), and then in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
And Cameron allegedly took drugs and may or may not have allegedly shagged a dead pig at university but that's got nothing to do with his time in office, nor does Boris's history have anything to do with his time in office.
I dont have a problem with MPs having taken drugs as long as they are not hypocritical over it and vote for longer sentences ala M Gove.
Call me old fashioned but I do think shagging dead pigs should disqualify someone from being PM, if just for potential blackmail by foreign powers reasons.
Jesus if we had to disqualify everyone who has shagged a dead pig from becoming Prime Minister who would that leave??
No dishonesty. He sought a deal, he got a deal and if Parliament had voted for it we'd be out. Parliament voted against for the 4th time.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
He's responsible for his actions and his MPs actions.
There is nothing complicated about this.
So you don't think making that promise was his own action?
I think he acted with full integrity to honour that promise.
Boris was sacked twice for lying. Firstly in 1988 from The Times over fabricating quotes from historian Colin Lucas (his own godfather), and then in 2004 from the Tory Shadow Front Bench over the Petronella Wyatt affair.
And Cameron allegedly took drugs and may or may not have allegedly shagged a dead pig at university but that's got nothing to do with his time in office, nor does Boris's history have anything to do with his time in office.
“If a man is honest in small things he will be honest in great. If a man is dishonest in small things he will be dishonest in great.”
The Gospel of St Luke. Integrity matters - or, rather, it ought to.
It is no use voters complaining about politicians lying and not keeping their promises if they then reward politicians who have a long record of lying and not keeping their promises.
Boris's opponents said Boris would get no deal, had no intention of getting a deal and was only interested in pushing for No Deal.
Who will history paint as the liars?
We have said this before. We didn't expect him to cave in so thoroughly and revert to something he himself said no British Prime Minister could ever sign up to.
That was our bad. We got wrapped up in the hype and didn't think that he could be quite so shameless.
And I think history will paint him as a gigantic liar fwiw.
Nah. Hero of Brexit, who led his people to the sunlit uplands......
Boris's opponents said Boris would get no deal, had no intention of getting a deal and was only interested in pushing for No Deal.
Who will history paint as the liars?
We have said this before. We didn't expect him to cave in so thoroughly and revert to something he himself said no British Prime Minister could ever sign up to.
That was our bad. We got wrapped up in the hype and didn't think that he could be quite so shameless.
And I think history will paint him as a gigantic liar fwiw.
It's called compromise in international negotiation. The EU backed down from their red lines of Level Playing Field and requirements and Northern Ireland in the EU Tariff regime. Compromise is a virtue, not a vice.
But it is amusing how quickly Remainers have switched from "Boris does not want a deal and is trying to trick us into No Deal" to "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for the worst one in human history".
What is more, I think Remainers genuinely believed both of these lines. And when the People's Vote campaign starts pumping out media towards the end of the extension, you will flip into "Boris is tricking us into No Deal" again. And you'll all believe it, as quick as they swallowed "We have always been at war with Eastasia!"
Comments
One might well ask: Where else is there for them to go that might actually change anything?
It's a smart way of ending the impasse.
Labour would be very wise to swallow their pride and back it.
There is nothing complicated about this.
The latest Met Office seasonal forecast has been released. Weather in December likely to be mild and wet with westerlies bringing frontal systems in off the Atlantic.
Consequently widespread snow and ice not likely to be a hazard for voters. Higher risk (though still low that it will directly interfere with the election) of a strong Atlantic storm and/or flooding.
For November-January the forecast probability of temperatures being in the coldest quintile are 5%, and 50-55% that they will be in the warmest quintile.
The voters heard 2.
But anyway it doesn't really matter. He hasn't been penalised for it (yet, as @williamglenn points out but I have my doubts he will be), the Cons are still miles ahead in the opinion polls, we are likely to have an election in six weeks, and the Cons are well placed to get an overall majority. And then of course we leave the EU with his deal I presume.
The only thing I do wonder is about the self-esteem of people like Mark Francois, and indeed our very own @HYUFD who realise they have been played for fools to get Boris to this position in the first place. But as I said, it is not a particularly bad position. All's fair etc, and the reputational damage to Francois and @HY as they now look like idiots, is but a small price to pay.
They are simply different promises.
The MPs were told in advance that they had to honour the pledge their party leader was literally just elected on or they were be expelled - they did not, they were expelled. Actions have consequences and they were expelled after betraying the whip not before it.
Everyone else = Duplicitous
History might want to have a word with you about that.
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007
"In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005
"We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
It is also why the Benn Act, from this "spike Blondie" perspective, was an error. Much better to have made him own the choice for 31 Oct between WTO crash out and an extension. Both would have hurt his subsequent GE chances big time. But, OK, the MPs who passed the Act feared (IMO wrongly) that he would be prepared to crash us out with no deal. So they acted and put country first. IMO they should not have done so.
Tory hold
2. Remainy?
Surprisingly
3. Local elections?
LD win on a big increased vote share
4. The squeeze
Not so great.
rcs1000 says Con Hold, but LDs get a decent second place (still 5-7,000 votes off the lead mind)
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
As if he hasn't repeated the line several times, without equivocation, since becoming PM.
Even you might enjoy a couple of frosty, sunny days after a few weeks of that.
Here's an example of real-life practical impacts - Newton Abbot racecourse inspects tomorrow for Thursday's meeting. If the meeting lost it will be the third successive fixture lost to the weather and they lost one of their lucrative June evening meetings.
How long does a business like that survive if the global warming about which you seem so happy continues to have an impact?
But in the longer term? Yes, I think it does. Because at some stage Jeremy Corbyn or some other hard left Labour type is going to pledge something or pledge not to do something and will feel entitled to do so because pledges don't matter and just let the opposition (the Cons at that point) try to whine about it.
Wimbledon is possible, especially if Stephen Hammond were to be the LD candidate. Still it's a 30-40% chance at most.
Finchley & Golders Green. 20% chance.
Guilford. 15% chance
Putney. 5% chance.
Do everything I can goes without saying.
Barack Obama personally pledged to close down Guanatanamo Bay. He was blocked by Republicans. That doesn't mean Obama lied. It just means he was blocked. Everyone understands that political pledges are limited by the political process, but expect politicians to do everything in their power to fulfil them. Boris did that. If politicians want to prolong our international negotiations for six months to make a political opponent look bad, the public will rightly hold it against them.
Why are the public fed up with all politicians, the dissembling, the evasion and the downright Vazeline soaked law bending hypocrisy that politicians employ?
The 'he didn't die in a ditch' argument has loosers aplenty. They are the ones on both sides that continue an insignificant and pointless argument in a true politicians style.
I'm afraid Boris is somewhat given to flowery statements which bear little relation to the actuality. Straight bananas anyone?
Curses ! Those pesky Lib Dems....
Well they wouldnt be if we elected the ones who are willing to tell us what we dont want to hear.
I`ve thought this for a while. Brexit derangement syndrome is evident at both ends of the leave - remain spectrum of thought. I`m unusual in that I genuinely was on the fence over leave/remain and so can see the cognitive dissonance on both sides.
My first post today was to make the observation of how surprised I was at the fact that Leavers don't care that he lied but reading the comments of the folk on here, not all stupid, illiterate fools, apparently, has been extremely interesting and quite eye-opening.
As for my spin, why should I want Brexit to fail? I want it to succeed, which is why I supported May's deal and would even, if I were an MP, vote for the Boris deal, even though it is clearly inferior. If Brexit is going to succeed, or at least not be a complete disaster, then we are going to need to agree an FTA with the EU by the end of the transition period, which is not possible in the eleven months between the likely start and the end of 2020, and therefore he will need to request an extension by June. Therefore the issue of Boris's honesty on pledges of this sort is going to be a key factor.
'Fire chiefs have made an urgent public appeal for a high-rise cherry picker to help rescue a man stuck upside down more than 80 metres (270ft) up a chimney.'
Apparently the chap's been up there since the early hours.
He has no majority in Parliament. If he gets a majority then he has no reason not to deliver his pledges so lets give him a majority and then talk.
Of course but when he made that pledge he didn't have a majority and hence made it knowing full well that he would likely not be able to deliver on it. As indeed it transpired. And he knew that he wouldn't be able to deliver on it. And yet he still made it. That worries me because for those who are stupid, illiterate fools, his pledges may be persuasive.
When he made the pledge he was a few MPs only short of a majority and there were opposition MPs saying that we needed to leave too. Grieve and Gyimyah etc were still holding the Tory whip and the manifesto commitment they were elected on to honour the referendum.
He isn't responsible for the duplicity of liars like Grieve who have been expelled as punishment for their duplicity and breaking the whip.
If he said I will do everything he can to leave by x date he is responsible for doing what he can. If he says he will make certain we leave by x date regardless he is responsible for delivering what he promised. There is nothing complicated about this.
Politicians make pledges all the time without these ridiculous "try my best" or " do everything I can" caveats. Examples:
"As President, I will close down the detention facility at Guantanamo." -- Barack Obama, 2007
"In our third term, we will build on the firm foundations of stability, investment and growth." -- Tony Blair, 2005
"We will establish a Council on Financial Stability, involving representatives of all parties" -- Nick Clegg, 2010
Well I would certainly say Obama and Blair failed to deliver those promises, just as Johnson has. I am sure both will have been criticised for failing to deliver. Why shouldnt Johnson get criticised as well?
I dont know enough about the Council on Financial Stability or the context to comment on that one.
Yes, despite managing to get the EU to reopen the WA, drop the LPF restrictions, accept NI being in the UK Customs Territory and bringing home a new deal, he failed to deliver because the opposing MPs lied about their position. Boris can rightly say he got a deal against all expectations but was blocked by not having enough MPs. Give him more.
He got them to do it by conceding on his red lines and giving them a better deal.
Yep:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/pms-brexit-deal-available-to-theresa-may-15-months-ago/ar-AAJq9TT?ocid=spartanntp
And, yes, Johnson's language is habitually loose. But this does not mean he should be held to lower standards than other politicians.
That's a rogue's charter.
Not true. The deal they offerred to May did not have any consent mechanism, did not have Northern Ireland in the UK tariffs regime and signed the UK up to LPF requirements.
Firstly, even if you accept that Boris should be castigated for failing to exit by 31/10 why say he lied? He may have just made an error.
Secondly, all politicans lie don`t they? Corbyn keeps telling us he wants a GE!
But I am probably in a minority with that view. The voters are prepared to reward politicians with no integrity. So be it.
This is one election where I want both main parties to lose heavily. Fat chance. And even though I will likely vote Lib Dem (or possibly Green) I have strong reservations about their revoke policy.
And then we have all of 2020 to go through the same psychodrama over what happens at the end of the transition period. Bloody hell!
In other news last week I helped a farmer acquire a cow. Probably the most useful thing I’ve done this year.
Who will history paint as the liars?
Re local elections - There were special circumstances. Even Tories weren't voting Tory and the Mole Valley Tories and Guildford Tories weren't getting on and there are a few Mole Valley wards in the Guildford Borough. There has a been a fair bit of scandal re the Tories in Guildford. I won't go into the details here (long and boring), but the main gainers were independent groups, but they didn't have numbers so LDs did well also and it is a LD/Ind council, but mainly LD.
To give a flavour in the early days of the on going disruption, a by election was held in a seat the Tories had never lost. It was in the Mole Valley constituency, but Guildford Borough. Mole Valley Tories put up the candidate and the Guildford Tories refused to help. LDs won with 70ish percent. LD winner and Tory candidate then both defected to Indies!
What fun.
Call me old fashioned but I do think shagging dead pigs should disqualify someone from being PM, if just for potential blackmail by foreign powers reasons.
They booted out 21 rebels, including Churchill's grandson and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
And then they decided to throw Northern Ireland under a bus, thus losing the support of the DUP.
Clueless idiots. Neither has ever been a team player.
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether he would have crashed us out with no deal if the Benn Act hadn't closed off that option. I don't pretend to know the answer to that.
If they cant win a seat like that, significantly remain, held in the past, and with good organisation on the ground, then the Remain surge isn't going to get very far...
That was our bad. We got wrapped up in the hype and didn't think that he could be quite so shameless.
And I think history will paint him as a gigantic liar fwiw.
The reason why Boris is going to be forgiven for this is that the electorate have wised up to what is going on. The Tories are trying their damndest to get us out of the EU. The Labour Party have managed to demonise "no deal" and refuse to vote for any deal that represents brexit.
If I, as someone who wants this whole shit-fest Revoked can see this, then it shows the level of Brexit Derangement Syndrome on the Remainer side.
The Gospel of St Luke. Integrity matters - or, rather, it ought to.
It is no use voters complaining about politicians lying and not keeping their promises if they then reward politicians who have a long record of lying and not keeping their promises.
I'll mark you down as a monarchist and supporter of hereditary peers in HoL
But it is amusing how quickly Remainers have switched from "Boris does not want a deal and is trying to trick us into No Deal" to "Boris was so desperate for a deal he signed up for the worst one in human history".
What is more, I think Remainers genuinely believed both of these lines. And when the People's Vote campaign starts pumping out media towards the end of the extension, you will flip into "Boris is tricking us into No Deal" again. And you'll all believe it, as quick as they swallowed "We have always been at war with Eastasia!"