I didn’t watch Marr, I think we overstate the influence of these shows. What weirdos want to watch politics on a Sunday morning. However key to avoid any gotcha moments that a wider viewing public might see on the news and the internet for days after. Main takeaway from social media seems to be anti Boris crowd angry with Marr for doing a crap job of interrogating him.
Sounds like another hurdle negotiated by the PM, I also feel by doing Marr he now has a lot less pressure to do Neil.
Coming on to a politics forum on a Sunday morning to say you hadn't watched a politics tv show is definitely not the act of a weirdo. I'd want to watch someone clearing a hurdle before being convinced that they had actually cleared it.
Boris intends to be interviewed by Neil but only after the Postal votes have safely been collected. Indeed, this is the entirety of the election strategy for the Tories.
Very sensible strategy. Labour should have given theirs more thought in that respect
How can the come on a TV Program and not be willing to answer questions and just boorish spout corbyn is a communist get brexit done.
He is so out of his depth and he will be running the country for the next five years thanks to the Labour membership.
Thanks for your views I never knew you felt that!!
Jezza gone in 12 days in the meantime people like yourself not holding your nose and voting Lab.
Leads to the most right wing Govt in my lifetime in 11 days time
Yep - by insisting on being led by an anti-Semitic, anti-NATO, pro-Brexit, Bennite dinosaur Labour members have successfully managed to alienate millions of voters and deliver power to a right-wing, English nationalist party led by a lightweight, lying charlatan. Congratulations.
To think someone on PB once said that Bozo had gravitas!
I believe they said later theyd used the wrong word.
That was me and I accepted I meant charisma and not gravitas.
He does not have gravitas
I don't think he has that either
In that you are probably wrong though. I do not like Boris one bit, but I dont think his having charisma is disputable. Without it his rise is utterly inexplicable as he is not ideologically driven or pure, hes not morally upstanding, hes not as clever as he thinks he is, and hes not a diligent, hard working man. Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success? I think a lot of people do not like him therefore declare he is not charismatic, but that doesnt follow. Although people overdo the comparison Trump is charismatic and hes a hateful arsehole. Boris is able to fascinate, both in amusement and contempt, and like an actor having screen presence it's hard to explain or quantify. But he has it.
I agree. I know a passionate LibDem who is desperate for Remain and heartily dislikes Boris, but she finds him both sexy and charismatic just the same. She'd not dream of voting for him though - she distinguishes between people she'd like to sleep with and people she wants running the country.
He is right they have been meddling and invading all these countries for many years with their pals from the US and created most of the chaos and terrorism.
So the ideology which animates them has nothing to do with the terrorism, does it?
British forces have been on constant combat operations in the Middle East for 28 years - killing almost exclusively muslims. How long do think they'll have to keep doing it before we're "safe"?
It is possible to think such military interventions largely pointless (and often counter-productive) and also realise that Islamist terror is animated by an ideology and not just a response to Western actions. Those who focus on the latter and ignore the former - like Corbyn - do so because to admit the existence of an ideology with very different views about law, democracy, the role of religion in public life, free thought etc would raise difficult questions for those who think that those believing in the ideology are only ever victims and not also responsible for some pretty gruesome behaviour themselves.
Well said. We can be awfully infantilising about the middle east and while interventions are of great importance it's not everything, especially when some of the tensions go back a lot lot longer. Its usually peddled by people with their own simplistic narrative to comfort an ideology they hold.
Corbyn's attack on Johnson (supposedly pandering to warmonger Trump) looks absurd when Trump is accelerating US withdrawal from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. What more could Corbyn ask for?
Doesnr matter what is being done or not done. Trump is despised in this country so drawing him and Boris together is a smart move
Media are now latching onto this as a media story - and even in the middle of an election they love nothing better than talking about themselves. Johnson is now damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, but the media aren’t going to let it go - so on balance he’s better off giving Andrew Neil an hour of his time at the earliest opportunity.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Unfair. He succeeded in London in the same way as a top comedian - he made us laugh. From bendy buses which did not work to suggesting double decker trains that would not fit under bridges, to supporting bridges which were never getting built, and who can forget the airport in the sea? And all of that is without his habit of showing a grasp of numbers in the Diane Abbott category or of having a strange fascination with dangly things (no, not those, zip wires and cable cars).
All these people who are voting Lib Dem because Johnson is a liar and untrustworthy. How do they square away Swinson's signing the pledge not to vote to raise tuition fees in 2010? Yeah, I know "it's different" and she has quite young at the time. But she'd served a full term as an MP by then. There's cast iron evidence that her word is meaningless to her.
There is a difference between lying, over-promising, and making a u-turn.
I think Swinson very likely believed that party policy would be not to raise tuition fees. The policy was then u-turned well above her pay grade. That is different to someone outright lying, as Johnson just did on NI checks just now as one of many examples.
I get that, I really do. It was a rotten position for Clegg to put his MPs into: forced to choose between honouring their word and supporting their party when it was at a major crossroads. But seriously: if you're standing for election as an MP, you have to have the moral courage to do what's right. She signed her name to that pledge (as did all the others) and it's legitimate to ask why she, as nearly all the others, failed to follow through. There's a huge difference between that pledge and an ordinary manifesto commitment, to my mind. This is especially relevant given that her current position is not to put Corbyn in power, and that she had explicitly laid out different paths on Brexit for a Lib Dem majority government vs a hung parliament. Why should anyone believe she won't ultimately find a reason to support Corbyn as PM to help stop Brexit?
Personally I would be very happy with MPs taking more positions against the party leaderships and whips, but that is a minority position it seems. Most want party loyalty ahead of conscience. The question on Corbyn is interesting, I think it is close to a lie from Swinson. My understanding is she means she will not offer C&S or enter a coalition with Corbyn. I think that is all it means, I dont think it means the LDs will block Corbyn being PM by voting no confidence immediately. I would guess most of the public interpret it very differently, and will feel lied to. With a Jan 31 deadline, in a hung parliament the choices are very likely Johnson, Corbyn or no deal, and they are not choosing no deal.
To think someone on PB once said that Bozo had gravitas!
I believe they said later theyd used the wrong word.
That was me and I accepted I meant charisma and not gravitas.
He does not have gravitas
I don't think he has that either
In that you are probably wrong though. I do not like Boris one bit, but I dont think his having charisma is disputable. Without it his rise is utterly inexplicable as he is not ideologically driven or pure, hes not morally upstanding, hes not as clever as he thinks he is, and hes not a diligent, hard working man. Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success? I think a lot of people do not like him therefore declare he is not charismatic, but that doesnt follow. Although people overdo the comparison Trump is charismatic and hes a hateful arsehole. Boris is able to fascinate, both in amusement and contempt, and like an actor having screen presence it's hard to explain or quantify. But he has it.
I agree. I know a passionate LibDem who is desperate for Remain and heartily dislikes Boris, but she finds him both sexy and charismatic just the same. She'd not dream of voting for him though - she distinguishes between people she'd like to sleep with and people she wants running the country.
Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success?
A belief amongst certain sections of the electorate that he has been to Eton and is therefore a "sound" chap? Also, perhaps he has a wiley sense of the fights to pick - like going up against the unpopular Livingston in London? Low cunning...
To think someone on PB once said that Bozo had gravitas!
I believe they said later theyd used the wrong word.
That was me and I accepted I meant charisma and not gravitas.
He does not have gravitas
I don't think he has that either
In that you are probably wrong though. I do not like Boris one bit, but I dont think his having charisma is disputable. Without it his rise is utterly inexplicable as he is not ideologically driven or pure, hes not morally upstanding, hes not as clever as he thinks he is, and hes not a diligent, hard working man. Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success? I think a lot of people do not like him therefore declare he is not charismatic, but that doesnt follow. Although people overdo the comparison Trump is charismatic and hes a hateful arsehole. Boris is able to fascinate, both in amusement and contempt, and like an actor having screen presence it's hard to explain or quantify. But he has it.
I agree. I know a passionate LibDem who is desperate for Remain and heartily dislikes Boris, but she finds him both sexy and charismatic just the same. She'd not dream of voting for him though - she distinguishes between people she'd like to sleep with and people she wants running the country.
I dont like Boris and I dont want to sleep with him either But i will vote for him to.keep Corbyn out.
All these people who are voting Lib Dem because Johnson is a liar and untrustworthy. How do they square away Swinson's signing the pledge not to vote to raise tuition fees in 2010? Yeah, I know "it's different" and she has quite young at the time. But she'd served a full term as an MP by then. There's cast iron evidence that her word is meaningless to her.
There is a difference between lying, over-promising, and making a u-turn.
I think Swinson very likely believed that party policy would be not to raise tuition fees. The policy was then u-turned well above her pay grade. That is different to someone outright lying, as Johnson just did on NI checks just now as one of many examples.
I get that, I really do. It was a rotten position for Clegg to put his MPs into: forced to choose between honouring their word and supporting their party when it was at a major crossroads. But seriously: if you're standing for election as an MP, you have to have the moral courage to do what's right. She signed her name to that pledge (as did all the others) and it's legitimate to ask why she, as nearly all the others, failed to follow through. There's a huge difference between that pledge and an ordinary manifesto commitment, to my mind. This is especially relevant given that her current position is not to put Corbyn in power, and that she had explicitly laid out different paths on Brexit for a Lib Dem majority government vs a hung parliament. Why should anyone believe she won't ultimately find a reason to support Corbyn as PM to help stop Brexit?
More importantly, Swinson can be castigated for making a political decision only. Boris has lied to his wives, his employer, his leader (Howard), his constituents (on Heathrow), the TV audience (almost everything he has said about the recent attack) etc. He is incapable of telling the truth and that makes him fundamentally different.
Hmm. Heathrow wasn't a political issue? Not sure what you're referring to with respect to his employer. I think it's clear Johnson has an appalling record in this area. I'm just not convinced the difference between him and others is a qualitative one - rather, a quantitative difference that can be mostly explained by length of time in the public eye.
Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success?
A belief amongst certain sections of the electorate that he has been to Eton and is therefore a "sound" chap? Also, perhaps he has a wiley sense of the fights to pick - like going up against the unpopular Livingston in London? Low cunning...
Both of those may help, but without charisma I dont think anyone could exploit those sufficiently to rise to high office, even as there are many who can get to be MPs off the back of that.
The 9 years of tory government line would hold more weight if Brown hadn't still been trying to blame the Tories 13 years after they left power in 2010 or indeed lefties more generally blaming the ills of society on someone who left power 29 years ago, ignoring the 13 years they spent failing miserably in the middle of it.
Best result remains a 100 seat Conservative majority, Johnson loses his seat, and Labour grows some balls and either axes Corbyn or the decent MPs live up to that name and walk out.
Jess Phillips[sp] and the like blathering about how they oppose Corbyn whilst campaigning for him to be PM is just pathetic.
The last thing we need is Bozo with a big majority, far better a hung parliament so there are some checks and balances on whichever of the two morons is PM.
Best result remains a 100 seat Conservative majority, Johnson loses his seat, and Labour grows some balls and either axes Corbyn or the decent MPs live up to that name and walk out.
Jess Phillips[sp] and the like blathering about how they oppose Corbyn whilst campaigning for him to be PM is just pathetic.
The last thing we need is Bozo with a big majority, far better a hung parliament so there are some checks and balances on whichever of the two morons is PM.
My feelings exactly. I really don't think either party deserves a majority at the moment.
Good campaigner, intelligent a wizard with words, oozing charisma etc etc where did fantasy of Johnson come from?
From the imagination of Tory supporters outside of London who assume that Boris must have done a hell of job to get elected twice, but forgetting that Boris was up against Ken Livingstone. I'd vote for a dead dog to be Mayor over Livingstone.
Ironically, this viewpoint requires Johnson's detractors to themselves forget that Livingstone beat Steve Norris, twice.
Marr is actually a very good journalist. His writing is excellent. Much better than Neil’s for example. But he cannot do live TV interviews. He is not a natural in front of the camera and lacks the speed of thought required to be forensically effective.
The 9 years of tory government line would hold more weight if Brown hadn't still been trying to blame the Tories 13 years after they left power in 2010 or indeed lefties more generally blaming the ills of society on someone who left power 29 years ago, ignoring the 13 years they spent failing miserably in the middle of it.
Brown got punished by the electorate for not taking responsibility. Will the same happen with Johnson or is his teflon cloak impenetrable?
All these people who are voting Lib Dem because Johnson is a liar and untrustworthy. How do they square away Swinson's signing the pledge not to vote to raise tuition fees in 2010? Yeah, I know "it's different" and she has quite young at the time. But she'd served a full term as an MP by then. There's cast iron evidence that her word is meaningless to her.
There is a difference between lying, over-promising, and making a u-turn.
I think Swinson very likely believed that party policy would be not to raise tuition fees. The policy was then u-turned well above her pay grade. That is different to someone outright lying, as Johnson just did on NI checks just now as one of many examples.
I get that, I really do. It was a rotten position for Clegg to put his MPs into: forced to choose between honouring their word and supporting their party when it was at a major crossroads. But seriously: if you're standing for election as an MP, you have to have the moral courage to do what's right. She signed her name to that pledge (as did all the others) and it's legitimate to ask why she, as nearly all the others, failed to follow through. There's a huge difference between that pledge and an ordinary manifesto commitment, to my mind. This is especially relevant given that her current position is not to put Corbyn in power, and that she had explicitly laid out different paths on Brexit for a Lib Dem majority government vs a hung parliament. Why should anyone believe she won't ultimately find a reason to support Corbyn as PM to help stop Brexit?
More importantly, Swinson can be castigated for making a political decision only. Boris has lied to his wives, his employer, his leader (Howard), his constituents (on Heathrow), the TV audience (almost everything he has said about the recent attack) etc. He is incapable of telling the truth and that makes him fundamentally different.
Hmm. Heathrow wasn't a political issue? Not sure what you're referring to with respect to his employer. I think it's clear Johnson has an appalling record in this area. I'm just not convinced the difference between him and others is a qualitative one - rather, a quantitative difference that can be mostly explained by length of time in the public eye.
Best result remains a 100 seat Conservative majority, Johnson loses his seat, and Labour grows some balls and either axes Corbyn or the decent MPs live up to that name and walk out.
Jess Phillips[sp] and the like blathering about how they oppose Corbyn whilst campaigning for him to be PM is just pathetic.
Since Phillips isn't (yet) in a position to mount a leadership coup, I fail to see what else she can do. She talks sense most of the time which clearly deeply offends some in Labour.
As the well-known Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes points out, Corbyn isn't anti-semitic and she'll still vote Labour. However, a very effective smear campaign has portrayed him as such and has probably swung the vote sufficiently to give the fat liar a full term of office.
To think someone on PB once said that Bozo had gravitas!
I believe they said later theyd used the wrong word.
That was me and I accepted I meant charisma and not gravitas.
He does not have gravitas
I don't think he has that either
In that you are probably wrong though. I do not like Boris one bit, but I dont think his having charisma is disputable. Without it his rise is utterly inexplicable as he is not ideologically driven or pure, hes not morally upstanding, hes not as clever as he thinks he is, and hes not a diligent, hard working man. Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success? I think a lot of people do not like him therefore declare he is not charismatic, but that doesnt follow. Although people overdo the comparison Trump is charismatic and hes a hateful arsehole. Boris is able to fascinate, both in amusement and contempt, and like an actor having screen presence it's hard to explain or quantify. But he has it.
I agree. I know a passionate LibDem who is desperate for Remain and heartily dislikes Boris, but she finds him both sexy and charismatic just the same. She'd not dream of voting for him though - she distinguishes between people she'd like to sleep with and people she wants running the country.
It sounds a bit like that scene from Austin Powers where he asks Heather Graham how she could sleep with Fat Bastard, explaining that he means the question physically and literally. Although the other part of that scene, where she puts a homing device in his rectum might be a wise precaution for Boris' partners.
Not at all, it is the pragmatic choice that we face in the real world. Those who support politicians unequivocally and without qualification are truly deluded and doomed to disappointment. Such support is for football teams not governments. Politicians are human and tend to be a particularly flawed variety. But that does not excuse us from choosing. Its a bit like Brexit. Both sides lied through their teeth. The argument that those who voted for either side bought or supported all of those lies is childish and absurd. But persistent, sadly.
There is a vast space to occupy between ultra partisan fandom (as well described by you above) and ultra cynicism - your previous "All politicians lie all the time. They distort, choose selective stats and plain lie. It is their function." The truth is that lying is not uncommon in politics but some politicians do it more than others. Some MUCH more. One of those, undeniably, is "Boris". Now it's fine to weigh this up against his positives (as you see them) and against the bigger (as you see them) negatives of the alternatives - and on that basis support him. But don't seek to excuse and downplay his mendacity on the grounds that all other politicians are as bad in this regard. They simply aren't. He's outstanding in this department.
Boris in my view reached his zenith as chair of HIGNFY. He was quick witted, genuinely funny, self deprecating and clever. It played to all of his strengths and few of his evident weaknesses. These strengths helped him when Mayor and the job was mainly showmanship. It allowed him to do well during the Olympics. The balance of skills and weaknesses is perhaps less favourable for PM but, as Tony used to say, we are where we are.
All these people who are voting Lib Dem because Johnson is a liar and untrustworthy. How do they square away Swinson's signing the pledge not to vote to raise tuition fees in 2010? Yeah, I know "it's different" and she has quite young at the time. But she'd served a full term as an MP by then. There's cast iron evidence that her word is meaningless to her.
There is a difference between lying, over-promising, and making a u-turn.
I think Swinson very likely believed that party policy would be not to raise tuition fees. The policy was then u-turned well above her pay grade. That is different to someone outright lying, as Johnson just did on NI checks just now as one of many examples.
I get that, I really do. It was a rotten position for Clegg to put his MPs into: forced to choose between honouring their word and supporting their party when it was at a major crossroads. But seriously: if you're standing for election as an MP, you have to have the moral courage to do what's right. She signed her name to that pledge (as did all the others) and it's legitimate to ask why she, as nearly all the others, failed to follow through. There's a huge difference between that pledge and an ordinary manifesto commitment, to my mind. This is especially relevant given that her current position is not to put Corbyn in power, and that she had explicitly laid out different paths on Brexit for a Lib Dem majority government vs a hung parliament. Why should anyone believe she won't ultimately find a reason to support Corbyn as PM to help stop Brexit?
More importantly, Swinson can be castigated for making a political decision only. Boris has lied to his wives, his employer, his leader (Howard), his constituents (on Heathrow), the TV audience (almost everything he has said about the recent attack) etc. He is incapable of telling the truth and that makes him fundamentally different.
Hmm. Heathrow wasn't a political issue? Not sure what you're referring to with respect to his employer. I think it's clear Johnson has an appalling record in this area. I'm just not convinced the difference between him and others is a qualitative one - rather, a quantitative difference that can be mostly explained by length of time in the public eye.
He was sacked as a journalist at The Telegraph for filing stories which he made up. And if he is to be excused lying about his position on Heathrow (where is a bulldozer when you need one) then the same get out applies to Swinson on tuition fees.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Dear god, please say something that indicates you are something more than a paid by the word Labour Party spambot.
Boris buses Cable car Strikes Garden Bridge Cycling routes Ticket offices I have a lot more if you'd like me to continue? The only good thing I can think of is: Boris bikes [stolen from Livingstone]
Best result remains a 100 seat Conservative majority, Johnson loses his seat, and Labour grows some balls and either axes Corbyn or the decent MPs live up to that name and walk out.
Jess Phillips[sp] and the like blathering about how they oppose Corbyn whilst campaigning for him to be PM is just pathetic.
Since Phillips isn't (yet) in a position to mount a leadership coup, I fail to see what else she can do. She talks sense most of the time which clearly deeply offends some in Labour.
As the well-known Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes points out, Corbyn isn't anti-semitic and she'll still vote Labour. However, a very effective smear campaign has portrayed him as such and has probably swung the vote sufficiently to give the fat liar a full term of office.
I dont know if Corbyn is anti semitic or not but it was not a smear campaign, it was a result of Labours failure to deal quickly and clearly with anti semitism within the party.
Johnson’s latest lie - that the murdering scumbag who committed the London Bridge attack was sentenced 11 years ago under a Labour government - is his most despicable yet. I think he finds it so easy to lie because, as much of his writing demonstrates, he holds a large proportion of the electorate in contempt.
Has he said that? Genuine question.
What I thought I heard was that he was sentenced under a law passed by Labour and subsequent changes to the law couldn’t alter that retrospectively
(I don’t know the law but that second paragraph sounds plausible from a technical perspective)
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
So what? That doesn't mean he did a good job. It seems he's about to win an election, it doesn't mean he's not a failure - and his record shows that to be the case and will continue to do so. Trump's record is of utter failure - and yet he also got elected. Being elected is all these people are interested in, they don't actually have any other vision or policies
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Dear god, please say something that indicates you are something more than a paid by the word Labour Party spambot.
Boris buses Cable car Strikes Garden Bridge Cycling routes Ticket offices I have a lot more if you'd like me to continue? The only good thing I can think of is: Boris bikes [stolen from Livingstone]
Admittedly 'Boris Bikes' led to one of the better questions. Why did Boris name the scheme collectively after his mistresses instead of naming each bike individually after one of them?
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
The problem with politicians and election performance is the sample size is tiny and the opponents quality variable. It would be like measuring football clubs by their performance in the FA Cup third round.
A manager of Man Utd beating Plymouth and Carshalton twice has a 2 from 2 record as well but it doesnt tell us anything about his quality.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Dear god, please say something that indicates you are something more than a paid by the word Labour Party spambot.
Boris buses Cable car Strikes Garden Bridge Cycling routes Ticket offices I have a lot more if you'd like me to continue? The only good thing I can think of is: Boris bikes [stolen from Livingstone]
As a born and bred Londoner the only negatives I can think of are the garden bridge and the slow reaction to the riot. I like the Cable Car and it is paid for by Emirates, he got rid of bendy buses and did a great job with the Olympics.
He was a pretty popular Mayor and a good ambassador for London at the time. It must worry the left that he was capable of beating the far left twice in one of the most left leaning parts of the UK, how will his 3rd battle play out on a national level?
'People might be more interested in my answers than your questions' snigger
That does make a better comeback that simply whining 'let me finish' over and over, even if it is the same point and usually (not watching so cannot make a judgement) unreasonable because the person saying it is not really answering anyway.
I've learned something this morning. Miriam Margolyes is the sole arbiter of what constitutes anti semitism and who is an anti semite! Wow, powerful lady.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Dear god, please say something that indicates you are something more than a paid by the word Labour Party spambot.
Boris buses Cable car Strikes Garden Bridge Cycling routes Ticket offices I have a lot more if you'd like me to continue? The only good thing I can think of is: Boris bikes [stolen from Livingstone]
As a born and bred Londoner the only negatives I can think of are the garden bridge and the slow reaction to the riot. I like the Cable Car and it is paid for by Emirates, he got rid of bendy buses and did a great job with the Olympics.
He was a pretty popular Mayor and a good ambassador for London at the time. It must worry the left that he was capable of beating the far left twice in one of the most left leaning parts of the UK, how will his 3rd battle play out on a national level?
How much money did the Garden Bridge waste? There's downplaying things and then there's that. He was popular at the time, you can have that - but he's incredibly unpopular now, mostly because most of the decisions he made didn't really get seen for the disaster they were until he'd left.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
White collar fraudsters often wreck the lives of hundreds of people but end up serving half of the time they actually do in open prisons. Just saying.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
So what? That doesn't mean he did a good job. It seems he's about to win an election, it doesn't mean he's not a failure - and his record shows that to be the case and will continue to do so. Trump's record is of utter failure - and yet he also got elected. Being elected is all these people are interested in, they don't actually have any other vision or policies
Anyone being remotely objective, and who lived in London at the time, will concede he did the job of Mayor well. He was a front man and a salesman, and he let a talented team crack on. There were errors but, absent Brexit and it’s impact on Londoners’ views, he’d have won a third term if he wanted one.
I've learned something this morning. Miriam Margolyes is the sole arbiter of what constitutes anti semitism and who is an anti semite! Wow, powerful lady.
I am all in favour of Lady Whiteadder being appointed Morality Advisor to Boris.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
White collar fraudsters often wreck the lives of hundreds of people but end up serving half of the time they actually do in open prisons. Just saying.
But surely that's why we need a proper parole board that investigates and decides these cases. There are always cases where people shouldn't be let out and should serve the full term - but there are equally as many where they deserve to be. And this "one size fits all" approach seems to lead to a certain disaster.
Boris in my view reached his zenith as chair of HIGNFY. He was quick witted, genuinely funny, self deprecating and clever. It played to all of his strengths and few of his evident weaknesses. These strengths helped him when Mayor and the job was mainly showmanship. It allowed him to do well during the Olympics. The balance of skills and weaknesses is perhaps less favourable for PM but, as Tony used to say, we are where we are.
David, you do know it was scripted, and practiced several times before they did the final version.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Dear god, please say something that indicates you are something more than a paid by the word Labour Party spambot.
Boris buses Cable car Strikes Garden Bridge Cycling routes Ticket offices I have a lot more if you'd like me to continue? The only good thing I can think of is: Boris bikes [stolen from Livingstone]
Admittedly 'Boris Bikes' led to one of the better questions. Why did Boris name the scheme collectively after his mistresses instead of naming each bike individually after one of them?
Johnson’s latest lie - that the murdering scumbag who committed the London Bridge attack was sentenced 11 years ago under a Labour government - is his most despicable yet. I think he finds it so easy to lie because, as much of his writing demonstrates, he holds a large proportion of the electorate in contempt.
Has he said that? Genuine question.
What I thought I heard was that he was sentenced under a law passed by Labour and subsequent changes to the law couldn’t alter that retrospectively
(I don’t know the law but that second paragraph sounds plausible from a technical perspective)
Yes, he has said that. In his Mail on Sunday article today.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
So what? That doesn't mean he did a good job. It seems he's about to win an election, it doesn't mean he's not a failure - and his record shows that to be the case and will continue to do so. Trump's record is of utter failure - and yet he also got elected. Being elected is all these people are interested in, they don't actually have any other vision or policies
Anyone being remotely objective, and who lived in London at the time, will concede he did the job of Mayor well. He was a front man and a salesman, and he let a talented team crack on. There were errors but, absent Brexit and it’s impact on Londoners’ views, he’d have won a third term if he wanted one.
He was popular and you're right he probably would have won a third term - but I do not think he did a good job. He just sold it well.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
At least it explains the Tory funding policies:-
More Police - to allow them to show a presence even though Community support officers are cheaper and more approachable so more visible. More prisons - because people are going to be there longer
No more money on the courts - heck they are guilty so being left on remand isn't a problem.
Greens in favour of legalisation and regulation of ALL drugs not just cannabis Austerity should “never have started” Is this their actual policy or is this just a nutty individual in London?
I agree with the first policy 100%. Prohibition has failed. I'd rather all drugs were dispensed via a well regulated pharmacist like Boots the Chemist than a dodgy drug dealer with zero regulations.
I’m completely amazed that no-one from the largest two parties has mentioned drugs during the campaign. Other countries (such as Portugal) have made huge reforms that have worked out well, it would have made sense to at least review in detail what’s happened there, with a view to exploring change if feasible. The crap middle way on drugs has demonstrably failed, you either need to go down the authoritarian (Singapore, Dubai, Thailand) or libertarian (Portugal, increasingly US states) route.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Yes, the responsible thing for politicians to do is leave wiggle room at least. It’s not hard to imagine someone convicted of a “conspiracy” type crime when 18, at a very early stage and with no really concrete plan, who has truly reformed in prison five years later. To be honest, we should often view such a person as being a victim too, and having been groomed.
All these people who are voting Lib Dem because Johnson is a liar and untrustworthy. How do they square away Swinson's signing the pledge not to vote to raise tuition fees in 2010? Yeah, I know "it's different" and she has quite young at the time. But she'd served a full term as an MP by then. There's cast iron evidence that her word is meaningless to her.
There is a difference between lying, over-promising, and making a u-turn.
I think Swinson very likely believed that party policy would be not to raise tuition fees. The policy was then u-turned well above her pay grade. That is different to someone outright lying, as Johnson just did on NI checks just now as one of many examples.
I get that, I really do. It was a rotten position for Clegg to put his MPs into: forced to choose between honouring their word and supporting their party when it was at a major crossroads. But seriously: if you're standing for election as an MP, you have to have the moral courage to do what's right. She signed her name to that pledge (as did all the others) and it's legitimate to ask why she, as nearly all the others, failed to follow through. There's a huge difference between that pledge and an ordinary manifesto commitment, to my mind. This is especially relevant given that her current position is not to put Corbyn in power, and that she had explicitly laid out different paths on Brexit for a Lib Dem majority government vs a hung parliament. Why should anyone believe she won't ultimately find a reason to support Corbyn as PM to help stop Brexit?
More importantly, Swinson can be castigated for making a political decision only. Boris has lied to his wives, his employer, his leader (Howard), his constituents (on Heathrow), the TV audience (almost everything he has said about the recent attack) etc. He is incapable of telling the truth and that makes him fundamentally different.
Hmm. Heathrow wasn't a political issue? Not sure what you're referring to with respect to his employer. I think it's clear Johnson has an appalling record in this area. I'm just not convinced the difference between him and others is a qualitative one - rather, a quantitative difference that can be mostly explained by length of time in the public eye.
He was sacked as a journalist at The Telegraph for filing stories which he made up. And if he is to be excused lying about his position on Heathrow (where is a bulldozer when you need one) then the same get out applies to Swinson on tuition fees.
Oh, neither is to be excused. As I said, Johnson clearly has by far the worse record of the two. But thank you for clarifying.
NEW PREDICTION: All new weekend poll-of-polls shows #Conservative bounce back with lead above 10pc and still on track for a moderate majority. But pollsters still divided and situation volatile. Numbers at: https://t.co/ipLv6MyHGzhttps://t.co/HkbyTb5qEb
All we took away from that was Marr's utter contempt for Boris.
Contempt for a liars and cowards is perfectly natural.
Not when it is his job to conduct forensic political examination. It is for the viewers to decide whether Boris is a liar and a coward - on the basis of his answers to questions put to him. Not for Marr to have that as his start and end point. Marr's hatred oozing from every pore was not the BBC at its best.
Marr couldn't control the interview. Johnson insisted on waffling on, ignoring Marr, and diverting to Corbyn. Marr found it very difficult to get in. Marr was hostile because he was failing to live up to his own expectations of a cracking interview. For better or ill it simply reinforced one's prior image of Johnson as a despicable bully or an inspired campaigner and leader. Impact on voters might be to strengthen the determination of those who despise Johnson to vote against him. I can't see it converting many people to his side.
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
At least it explains the Tory funding policies:-
More Police - to allow them to show a presence even though Community support officers are cheaper and more approachable so more visible. More prisons - because people are going to be there longer
No more money on the courts - heck they are guilty so being left on remand isn't a problem.
They are not even replacing the ones they have cut so no great shakes
https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1201094241973391362 Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
Both Corbyn's quote and yours are why the Conservatives will be wise to push this message hard in the final 10 days of campaigning: the public doesn't share your carefree attitude towards their safety.
NEW PREDICTION: All new weekend poll-of-polls shows #Conservative bounce back with lead above 10pc and still on track for a moderate majority. But pollsters still divided and situation volatile. Numbers at: https://t.co/ipLv6MyHGzhttps://t.co/HkbyTb5qEb
Greens in favour of legalisation and regulation of ALL drugs not just cannabis Austerity should “never have started” Is this their actual policy or is this just a nutty individual in London?
I agree with the first policy 100%. Prohibition has failed. I'd rather all drugs were dispensed via a well regulated pharmacist like Boots the Chemist than a dodgy drug dealer with zero regulations.
I’m completely amazed that no-one from the largest two parties has mentioned drugs during the campaign. Other countries (such as Portugal) have made huge reforms that have worked out well, it would have made sense to at least review in detail what’s happened there, with a view to exploring change if feasible. The crap middle way on drugs has demonstrably failed, you either need to go down the authoritarian (Singapore, Dubai, Thailand) or libertarian (Portugal, increasingly US states) route.
An excellent point, but rather like pissing in the wind to expect our moral cowards to take on this issue during an election campaign. In the case of some it may have something to do with their own past involvement with drugs.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
So what? That doesn't mean he did a good job. It seems he's about to win an election, it doesn't mean he's not a failure - and his record shows that to be the case and will continue to do so. Trump's record is of utter failure - and yet he also got elected. Being elected is all these people are interested in, they don't actually have any other vision or policies
Anyone being remotely objective, and who lived in London at the time, will concede he did the job of Mayor well. He was a front man and a salesman, and he let a talented team crack on. There were errors but, absent Brexit and it’s impact on Londoners’ views, he’d have won a third term if he wanted one.
An honest assessment is it was a mix of good and bad. He sold London well, particularly internationally through the Olympics, helped give the city an environmental focus and made cycling easier. An obsession with vanity schemes like the Garden Bridge, water cannons and an airport in the sea instead of tacking the housing problem much less good.
In 2012 he only beat Livingstone 51.5-48.5 so imagine he would have lost by a similar margin to Khan rather than getting re-elected (Khan won 56.8-43.2).
Certainly there are a LOT of people awaiting and expecting a rerun of 2017, and interpreting every fractional uptick in Labour’s rating as the beginning of the surge. What people are forgetting is that last time Labour actually ran a good campaign, tapping into the mood of the moment and with lots of activity, energy and excitement. There’s been little of that this time - they’re trying to go through the same motions but it doesn’t feel the same at all. The common factor is that the Tory campaign is once again poor, if not plumbing the depths of self-destructiveness that Mrs M managed to achieve. The reason there’s a feeling that the Tories won’t win by much is that a lot of people don’t really want to vote for them, don’t like Bozo, are nervous about Brexit, but haven’t been inspired by any of the opposition parties to vote for anyone else.
This is very true. But the Tories need to gain seats and the more that BXP falls by the wayside (not to mention TIG - the who?) they've got to do it partly by winning votes from Labour in the North and Midlands, and all they've got is Brexit and "Labour is scary". Which essentially means in those constituencies that all they've got is Brexit. The bottom is falling out of "Get Brexit done" given that "getting Brexit done" is precisely what the Tories have been so famously unable to do. While they themselves might like to blame other people for their own failings that doesn't mean other people are going to swarm to blame other people. Which means all they've got left is immigration, which is why Leave won all those years ago anyway.
National campaigning from both sides has been boring for a week or so and there hasn't been a dementia tax yet for either side but the mist of boringness is bound to dispel. Tuition fees are still here and it's Labour who has the positive message for the young - a good position to be in if they can get it across. I can't see the Labour vote undershooting current polling unless there's a Zinoviev letter rerun and given who the Tory leader is any Zinoviev shoe is likely to be on the other foot.
Boris in my view reached his zenith as chair of HIGNFY. He was quick witted, genuinely funny, self deprecating and clever. It played to all of his strengths and few of his evident weaknesses. These strengths helped him when Mayor and the job was mainly showmanship. It allowed him to do well during the Olympics. The balance of skills and weaknesses is perhaps less favourable for PM but, as Tony used to say, we are where we are.
David, you do know it was scripted, and practiced several times before they did the final version.
Some of it was but there were a lot of spontaneous comments as well. He has a good sense of the absurd. Which is hardly surprising.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
Between the ages of two, when my mother left my serial adulterer father, to the age of nine, when she met my step-father, I was brought up in real poverty. I know poverty when I see it.
All we took away from that was Marr's utter contempt for Boris.
Contempt for a liars and cowards is perfectly natural.
Not when it is his job to conduct forensic political examination. It is for the viewers to decide whether Boris is a liar and a coward - on the basis of his answers to questions put to him. Not for Marr to have that as his start and end point. Marr's hatred oozing from every pore was not the BBC at its best.
Marr couldn't control the interview. Johnson insisted on waffling on, ignoring Marr, and diverting to Corbyn. Marr found it very difficult to get in. Marr was hostile because he was failing to live up to his own expectations of a cracking interview. For better or ill it simply reinforced one's prior image of Johnson as a despicable bully or an inspired campaigner and leader. Impact on voters might be to strengthen the determination of those who despise Johnson to vote against him. I can't see it converting many people to his side.
Sorry to bang on on this subject (I make no apology for everything else I bang on about) but just as I think it silly and wrong to label an interviewer as 'bullying' when they are very tough and hostile (even unreasonably so), I think it unfair to suggest an interviewee talking over, ignoring and so on adds to the impression they are a 'despicable bully' in anyway. If he is one, his interview technique doesn't speak to it.
Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success?
A belief amongst certain sections of the electorate that he has been to Eton and is therefore a "sound" chap? Also, perhaps he has a wiley sense of the fights to pick - like going up against the unpopular Livingston in London? Low cunning...
Both of those may help, but without charisma I dont think anyone could exploit those sufficiently to rise to high office, even as there are many who can get to be MPs off the back of that.
I guess my problem is that I cannot see his charisma, therefore I discount it.
Average lead of, what, 6, in 2017 at the end, reduced to 2 in the actual vote. Corbyn's future will depend on outperforming even the narrowing polls (eg if the average lead is 8, he really needs the vote to be 4-5 at worst).
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Dear god, please say something that indicates you are something more than a paid by the word Labour Party spambot.
Boris buses Cable car Strikes Garden Bridge Cycling routes Ticket offices I have a lot more if you'd like me to continue? The only good thing I can think of is: Boris bikes [stolen from Livingstone]
And under Labour / Khan
-Record murder rates
-Strikes
-Massive increases in City hall council tax levy,up 8.9% this year.
-Less affordable houses built than when Johnson was mayor.
I could continue.
And this is under a more moderate Labour politician, not a Corbyn nutter.
Best result remains a 100 seat Conservative majority, Johnson loses his seat, and Labour grows some balls and either axes Corbyn or the decent MPs live up to that name and walk out.
Jess Phillips[sp] and the like blathering about how they oppose Corbyn whilst campaigning for him to be PM is just pathetic.
Since Phillips isn't (yet) in a position to mount a leadership coup, I fail to see what else she can do. She talks sense most of the time which clearly deeply offends some in Labour.
As the well-known Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes points out, Corbyn isn't anti-semitic and she'll still vote Labour. However, a very effective smear campaign has portrayed him as such and has probably swung the vote sufficiently to give the fat liar a full term of office.
I dont know if Corbyn is anti semitic or not but it was not a smear campaign, it was a result of Labours failure to deal quickly and clearly with anti semitism within the party.
If both parties have members who wrongly discriminate against religious minorities, it's unacceptable that one party gets masses of criticism and the other only gets an occasional comment.
One party wants to reverse 35-40 years of Thatcherism. The other wants to continue the trend under which the top 0.1-1% pay a lower percent tax than their cleaners. The former party gets far more criticism, even on the BBC. Funny, that.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
Dear god, please say something that indicates you are something more than a paid by the word Labour Party spambot.
Boris buses Cable car Strikes Garden Bridge Cycling routes Ticket offices I have a lot more if you'd like me to continue? The only good thing I can think of is: Boris bikes [stolen from Livingstone]
As a born and bred Londoner the only negatives I can think of are the garden bridge and the slow reaction to the riot. I like the Cable Car and it is paid for by Emirates, he got rid of bendy buses and did a great job with the Olympics.
He was a pretty popular Mayor and a good ambassador for London at the time. It must worry the left that he was capable of beating the far left twice in one of the most left leaning parts of the UK, how will his 3rd battle play out on a national level?
How much money did the Garden Bridge waste? There's downplaying things and then there's that. He was popular at the time, you can have that - but he's incredibly unpopular now, mostly because most of the decisions he made didn't really get seen for the disaster they were until he'd left.
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
Yes, but do you count that as "success"? A difference here across parties is between people who feel that their side winning is what really matters on the understandable basis that if you never win you never do anything), and people who feel there's little point in winning if your side is actually pretty bad and will do harm to the country and their party's reputation.
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
All we took away from that was Marr's utter contempt for Boris.
Contempt for a liars and cowards is perfectly natural.
Not when it is his job to conduct forensic political examination. It is for the viewers to decide whether Boris is a liar and a coward - on the basis of his answers to questions put to him. Not for Marr to have that as his start and end point. Marr's hatred oozing from every pore was not the BBC at its best.
Marr couldn't control the interview. Johnson insisted on waffling on, ignoring Marr, and diverting to Corbyn. Marr found it very difficult to get in. Marr was hostile because he was failing to live up to his own expectations of a cracking interview. For better or ill it simply reinforced one's prior image of Johnson as a despicable bully or an inspired campaigner and leader. Impact on voters might be to strengthen the determination of those who despise Johnson to vote against him. I can't see it converting many people to his side.
Sorry to bang on on this subject (I make no apology for everything else I bang on about) but just as I think it silly and wrong to label an interviewer as 'bullying' when they are very tough and hostile (even unreasonably so), I think it unfair to suggest an interviewee talking over, ignoring and so on adds to the impression they are a 'despicable bully' in anyway. If he is one, his interview technique doesn't speak to it.
It may not be pc to say so, but I think an element of bullying personality type is needed to deal with some politicians in an interview. But it needs to be managed and backed by excellent knowledge of the subject matter, which is where Neil stands out. Marr was simply too deferential whilst at the same time knowing he needed to challenge Johnson and it ended up as a predictable talking on top of each other throughout (which was probably the PMs objective).
Other than charisma what else lies behind his political success?
A belief amongst certain sections of the electorate that he has been to Eton and is therefore a "sound" chap? Also, perhaps he has a wiley sense of the fights to pick - like going up against the unpopular Livingston in London? Low cunning...
Both of those may help, but without charisma I dont think anyone could exploit those sufficiently to rise to high office, even as there are many who can get to be MPs off the back of that.
I guess my problem is that I cannot see his charisma, therefore I discount it.
It's the same as that I cannot understand why Corbyn inspires such fanatical devotion (support, yes, but not fanaticism), and so find it difficult to predict its impact.
Greens in favour of legalisation and regulation of ALL drugs not just cannabis Austerity should “never have started” Is this their actual policy or is this just a nutty individual in London?
I agree with the first policy 100%. Prohibition has failed. I'd rather all drugs were dispensed via a well regulated pharmacist like Boots the Chemist than a dodgy drug dealer with zero regulations.
I’m completely amazed that no-one from the largest two parties has mentioned drugs during the campaign. Other countries (such as Portugal) have made huge reforms that have worked out well, it would have made sense to at least review in detail what’s happened there, with a view to exploring change if feasible. The crap middle way on drugs has demonstrably failed, you either need to go down the authoritarian (Singapore, Dubai, Thailand) or libertarian (Portugal, increasingly US states) route.
An excellent point, but rather like pissing in the wind to expect our moral cowards to take on this issue during an election campaign. In the case of some it may have something to do with their own past involvement with drugs.
Those with, umm, past personal experience of the subject, would possibly be keen to attract support for the more libertarian approach. Sadly, after Mrs May’s problems with social care policy last time out, no-one is going to suggest anything remotely controversial during the campaign. The famous “Too-Difficult List” just keeps getting longer.
I've learned something this morning. Miriam Margolyes is the sole arbiter of what constitutes anti semitism and who is an anti semite! Wow, powerful lady.
I am all in favour of Lady Whiteadder being appointed Morality Advisor to Boris.
Appointment? Wicked Child! Appointments to office have the trappings of power. And power is sinful!
My feeling with Johnson is that he's just utterly out of his depth - and that's what makes it ever so more tragic that he's managed to become the PM.
He was mayor of London for 8 years and has held two of the great offices of state. Corbyn makes jam.
Johnson's record in London is of utter failure, I'm not really sure you want to use that as an example of why he's not out of his depth.
You would say that but he won two elections for Mayor
So what? That doesn't mean he did a good job. It seems he's about to win an election, it doesn't mean he's not a failure - and his record shows that to be the case and will continue to do so. Trump's record is of utter failure - and yet he also got elected. Being elected is all these people are interested in, they don't actually have any other vision or policies
Anyone being remotely objective, and who lived in London at the time, will concede he did the job of Mayor well. He was a front man and a salesman, and he let a talented team crack on. There were errors but, absent Brexit and it’s impact on Londoners’ views, he’d have won a third term if he wanted one.
An honest assessment is it was a mix of good and bad. He sold London well, particularly internationally through the Olympics, helped give the city an environmental focus and made cycling easier. An obsession with vanity schemes like the Garden Bridge, water cannons and an airport in the sea instead of tacking the housing problem much less good.
In 2012 he only beat Livingstone 51.5-48.5 so imagine he would have lost by a similar margin to Khan rather than getting re-elected (Khan won 56.8-43.2).
I think this is fair. Worth noting that demographic changes over that period have made it significantly harder for Tory candidates to win London, and in truth Johnson did extremely well to win in 2012. Or was fortunate in his choice of opponent, if you prefer.
NEW PREDICTION: All new weekend poll-of-polls shows #Conservative bounce back with lead above 10pc and still on track for a moderate majority. But pollsters still divided and situation volatile. Numbers at: https://t.co/ipLv6MyHGzhttps://t.co/HkbyTb5qEb
Isn’t the Secret Barrister some anti Tory anti Brexit activist? Doubt anyone outside the twitter bubble is going to take what they say seriously. I think they tried to take down Priti Patel yesterday and didn’t do so well.
Poverty is lower now than when labour was in office.
LOL, what planet are you on
Well, if you view eating turnips as a measure of poverty.....
Easy to say there is no poverty when you have plenty. I have plenty and so could not pontificate on poverty , however I cannot believe all the people writing/media on poverty are lying about it, food bank numbers rocketing etc. You would have to be a real Tory to imagine that poverty is not on the rise.
Between the ages of two, when my mother left my serial adulterer father, to the age of nine, when she met my step-father, I was brought up in real poverty. I know poverty when I see it.
Mark, I am still not convinced you spend a lot of time mixing with people living in poverty and so could safely say it is in decline
Comments
I'd want to watch someone clearing a hurdle before being convinced that they had actually cleared it.
Johnson is now damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t, but the media aren’t going to let it go - so on balance he’s better off giving Andrew Neil an hour of his time at the earliest opportunity.
The question on Corbyn is interesting, I think it is close to a lie from Swinson. My understanding is she means she will not offer C&S or enter a coalition with Corbyn. I think that is all it means, I dont think it means the LDs will block Corbyn being PM by voting no confidence immediately.
I would guess most of the public interpret it very differently, and will feel lied to. With a Jan 31 deadline, in a hung parliament the choices are very likely Johnson, Corbyn or no deal, and they are not choosing no deal.
Also, perhaps he has a wiley sense of the fights to pick - like going up against the unpopular Livingston in London? Low cunning...
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/1201090090656845824
I dont like Boris and I dont want to sleep with him either
But i will vote for him to.keep Corbyn out.
I think it's clear Johnson has an appalling record in this area. I'm just not convinced the difference between him and others is a qualitative one - rather, a quantitative difference that can be mostly explained by length of time in the public eye.
Wonder how he'd have got on against, say, Sadiq Khan Or Tessa Jowell
He don’t learn anything new, and he just talks non stop . I wouldn’t say it was a car crash because there were no major gaffes .
But he really comes across as a very unpleasant individual.
As the well-known Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes points out, Corbyn isn't anti-semitic and she'll still vote Labour. However, a very effective smear campaign has portrayed him as such and has probably swung the vote sufficiently to give the fat liar a full term of office.
The truth is that lying is not uncommon in politics but some politicians do it more than others. Some MUCH more. One of those, undeniably, is "Boris". Now it's fine to weigh this up against his positives (as you see them) and against the bigger (as you see them) negatives of the alternatives - and on that basis support him. But don't seek to excuse and downplay his mendacity on the grounds that all other politicians are as bad in this regard. They simply aren't. He's outstanding in this department.
Cable car
Strikes
Garden Bridge
Cycling routes
Ticket offices
I have a lot more if you'd like me to continue?
The only good thing I can think of is: Boris bikes [stolen from Livingstone]
What I thought I heard was that he was sentenced under a law passed by Labour and subsequent changes to the law couldn’t alter that retrospectively
(I don’t know the law but that second paragraph sounds plausible from a technical perspective)
It seems he's about to win an election, it doesn't mean he's not a failure - and his record shows that to be the case and will continue to do so.
Trump's record is of utter failure - and yet he also got elected.
Being elected is all these people are interested in, they don't actually have any other vision or policies
A manager of Man Utd beating Plymouth and Carshalton twice has a 2 from 2 record as well but it doesnt tell us anything about his quality.
Call me a softy or whatever - but I really don't think the point of prison should be to lock people away forever and throw away the key, people can and do get reformed - and that should be the point in the first place. To me this seems like pointless political point scoring - that will only end up hurting the people prisons are designed to help.
He was a pretty popular Mayor and a good ambassador for London at the time. It must worry the left that he was capable of beating the far left twice in one of the most left leaning parts of the UK, how will his 3rd battle play out on a national level?
Wow, powerful lady.
He was popular at the time, you can have that - but he's incredibly unpopular now, mostly because most of the decisions he made didn't really get seen for the disaster they were until he'd left.
Just saying.
More Police - to allow them to show a presence even though Community support officers are cheaper and more approachable so more visible.
More prisons - because people are going to be there longer
No more money on the courts - heck they are guilty so being left on remand isn't a problem.
The crap middle way on drugs has demonstrably failed, you either need to go down the authoritarian (Singapore, Dubai, Thailand) or libertarian (Portugal, increasingly US states) route.
To be honest, we should often view such a person as being a victim too, and having been groomed.
Labour have got a lot of work to do.
For better or ill it simply reinforced one's prior image of Johnson as a despicable bully or an inspired campaigner and leader.
Impact on voters might be to strengthen the determination of those who despise Johnson to vote against him. I can't see it converting many people to his side.
In 2012 he only beat Livingstone 51.5-48.5 so imagine he would have lost by a similar margin to Khan rather than getting re-elected (Khan won 56.8-43.2).
National campaigning from both sides has been boring for a week or so and there hasn't been a dementia tax yet for either side but the mist of boringness is bound to dispel. Tuition fees are still here and it's Labour who has the positive message for the young - a good position to be in if they can get it across. I can't see the Labour vote undershooting current polling unless there's a Zinoviev letter rerun and given who the Tory leader is any Zinoviev shoe is likely to be on the other foot.
I know poverty when I see it.
-Record murder rates
-Strikes
-Massive increases in City hall council tax levy,up 8.9% this year.
-Less affordable houses built than when Johnson was mayor.
I could continue.
And this is under a more moderate Labour politician, not a Corbyn nutter.
One party wants to reverse 35-40 years of Thatcherism. The other wants to continue the trend under which the top 0.1-1% pay a lower percent tax than their cleaners. The former party gets far more criticism, even on the BBC. Funny, that.
He wouldn’t be putting that out if his poll was better for the Tories .
We’ll just have to wait and see !
Personally I think that ability to win is a desirable but insufficient reason to lead, and being bad at the job outweighs being good at getting it.
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1201076439250087936?s=20
Many thanks.
Sadly, after Mrs May’s problems with social care policy last time out, no-one is going to suggest anything remotely controversial during the campaign. The famous “Too-Difficult List” just keeps getting longer.
Or Con 262, Lab 299, LD 46.