Anti-cycleway West London councillors drove to Clean Air Day leafleting stunt

peted76 wrote:

I literally cannot wait to have Boris for el'Presidente, he will unite all four corners of the country who will all agree that we will have a Prime Minister who is a fuckwit. 

To be fair if we were given a choice, we'd probably have picked a more moderate fuckwit, but we didn't/don't so I'll take fuckwit who got stuck on a zip wire and mowed down a ten year old in a demonstration game of rugger, the King of fuckwits, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Huzzah! 

 

 

 

 

Politics is really weird these days, in so many ways.

Johnson is now repeating what May did - being apparently terrified of being interviewed or meeting any members of the public.  Hoping to just keep his head down and just sail into the top job as a matter of entitlement.  But BJ has never struck me as having the deep social-anxiety that May seemed to exhibit, he's quite gregarious in general.

I really wonder whether both Johnson and May share an almost non-political kind of ambition. 

Seems to me that May just wanted to be PM and then to stay in the job longer than Gordon Brown did - what she didn't seem to have was any real idea what she wanted to accomplish or why she wanted the job beyond crossing it off some personal bucket list.  I feel like Johnson is the same - he wants the job because he wants to complete some mental list he has of who he should be, but I don't know  if he has any clear idea of what he actually wants so achieve.  In a way that makes him slightly less scary than the really ideological Tories, but it also makes the whole situation a bit weird.  It's all psychodrama for the Tories now (plus money with Russian connections).

Oh, and there's also the incident where he agreed to help an old buddy find some people to beat up a journalist who was investigating a financial scam of his (I think they played the tape of that phone call donkey's years ago on HIGNFY).  Just like the Christian Republicans being happy to throw all their moralising out the window in order to support Trump, Tory moralists seem to lose all their standards when it comes to this guy.

It's all very weird.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Politics is really weird these days, in so many ways.

Johnson is now repeating what May did - being apparently terrified of being interviewed or meeting any members of the public.  Hoping to just keep his head down and just sail into the top job as a matter of entitlement.  But BJ has never struck me as having the deep social-anxiety that May seemed to exhibit, he's quite gregarious in general.

 

I really wonder whether both Johnson and May share an almost non-political kind of ambition. 

Taking Boris and May out of the point, I actually believe that the idea of keeping your head down should be employed more often by politicians.  Surely it'd be better to be judged on what one does rather than what one claims to think/might do/ if's buts and maybes and all that.. 

We've grown accustomed to far too much talk about what 'should/might/will happen' and hardly ever appear to look at politicians actions and outcomes, that is unless it's a bad action/outcome.

Negative, negative negative, that's what our 20th Centrury politics is all about. Just tell everyone how bad the other lot are and how you would do things better if you had the chance. Ignore all the good and focus on the negative. PR and Spin.. smoke and mirrors. Yes politicians have always looked after themselves and have had teflon shoulders, but this whole negative media thing I 'believe' was taken to new levels by Alastair Campbell back in the late 90's. When most of the country thought 'things could only get better' (hint, things did change and some short term wins were gained, but things really didn't get better in the medium term, never mind long term. 

I'm with you ref Boris, Hunt, May and 'ambition'.. but like most people at the top of their sport/career, they probably aren't wholly nice people out to do good in the world, more a 'nice to have' as a by product of their own aspirations.

However at least with the wholly forgettable May-bot we did get that awesome speech at the conservatives annual piss up, I did hope that the fact she was a daughter of a vicar and had an utterly boring life would at least bring something strong and stable to politics..  (clearly that didn't work out)... I can't buy into Corbyn.. there's something I can't quite trust in him, I don't know what it is (other than the obvious fact he's a politcian).. 

peted76 wrote:

I literally cannot wait to have Boris for el'Presidente, he will unite all four corners of the country who will all agree that we will have a Prime Minister who is a fuckwit.

There could be no better demonstration of the paucity of talent in the tory party that the choice for leader is a pound shop Trump or a man who has dedicated a large part of his life to destroying the NHS.

burtthebike wrote:

peted76 wrote:

I literally cannot wait to have Boris for el'Presidente, he will unite all four corners of the country who will all agree that we will have a Prime Minister who is a fuckwit.

There could be no better demonstration of the paucity of talent in the tory party that the choice for leader is a pound shop Trump or a man who has dedicated a large part of his life to destroying the NHS.

I suspect Labour would find Hunt much easier to beat than Johnson.  Simply because Johnson has a lot of people fooled with his 'good chap' act, which means he goes up against one of Corbyn's weaknesses - that he appears a bit humourlous and doctrinaire.

Johnson clearly isn't what he seems, but people are either easily fooled, or they want cover for just how unpleasant their own views are...its the nature of our age, it seems.

It baffles me how people ignore BJ's history of actual behaviour and actions instead only seeing the TV panel-show persona.

  Hunt, conversely, appears every bit as straight-laced and doctrinaire as Corbyn, just with the polarities reversed, so a fight between them would be purely about the politics.  Plus just as teachers all seemed to hate Michael Gove, even Tories in the NHS seem to spit blood at the mention of Hunt.

Also if they went with Hunt I could mess with people's head by putting up a poster at the next election saying "vote for Jeremy!"

Rakkor wrote:

Sorry for getting political but given Boris's previous rants about Gordon Browns illigitimacy in office I think anything is fair game

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/without-mandate-british-people-how-boris-johnson-described-gordon-brown-2007

“Without a mandate from the British people”: how Boris Johnson described Gordon Brown in 2007

An old column about the unelected Labour prime minister reveals the Tory leadership contender’s hypocrisy.

Isn't Alexander "Boris" Johnson also alleged to have written two completely opposite newspaper articles on Brexit, and pretty much flipped a coin at the last minute as to which one he'd actually publish and stand by?

Rick_Rude wrote:

Labour MPs would have obviously done it on an upcycled bicycle with tyres made up from old food and pulped Hansards. Always the Tories. Always.

Quite so.

Htc wrote:

Rick_Rude wrote:

Labour MPs would have obviously done it on an upcycled bicycle with tyres made up from old food and pulped Hansards. Always the Tories. Always.

Quite so.

It's almost like they're a bunch of self-centred, untrustworthy, psychopathic bastards.

hawkinspeter wrote:

It's almost like they're a bunch of self-centred, untrustworthy, psychopathic bastards.

Politicians in general or the Tories specifically?

ROOTminus1 wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

It's almost like they're a bunch of self-centred, untrustworthy, psychopathic bastards.

Politicians in general or the Tories specifically?

Yes

handlebarcam wrote:

And yet these people, as Tory Party members, will get to decide who will be the next Prime Minister. Figures vary, but by some accounts British Cycling has more members, so it'd be more democratic if they got to choose. Girlguiding UK blows the Conservative Party out of the water, both in terms of numbers, and the maturity of its members.

I suspect your implication that it's undemocratic is disingenuous but I'll say it anyway. They're deciding on the next Conservative Party leader. It's not a general election. Whether the party is in government or opposition the process is the same. And it's basically the same process for other parties too ie. the party membership decides who is leader. And BTW, when you close out your comment with that last sentence I don't think you should be calling other people's maturity into question.

portec wrote:

handlebarcam wrote:

And yet these people, as Tory Party members, will get to decide who will be the next Prime Minister. Figures vary, but by some accounts British Cycling has more members, so it'd be more democratic if they got to choose. Girlguiding UK blows the Conservative Party out of the water, both in terms of numbers, and the maturity of its members.

I suspect your implication that it's undemocratic is disingenuous but I'll say it anyway. They're deciding on the next Conservative Party leader. It's not a general election. Whether the party is in government or opposition the process is the same. And it's basically the same process for other parties too ie. the party membership decides who is leader. And BTW, when you close out your comment with that last sentence I don't think you should be calling other people's maturity into question.

Yes, it's how our system works.  Yes it's happened before.

But this time it's happening in the midst of a general political crisis. 

That was not the case when Brown replaced Blair, nor when Major replaced Thatcher.  That, plus the fact this government only exists in the first place because of a dodgy deal with the DUP, plus the weird way this leadership race has become an extended public circus (and never-ending party-political broadcast for the Tory party, with party-bigwig-after-party-bigwig being given an unchallenged platform in parts of the media, with no non-Tory voice getting a look in) concentrates the mind on the flaws in our political system.

Normally the slightly undemocratic nature of this transfer of power passes without much notice.  This time it's dragging on and on, as apparently every Tory MP wants to be leader, despite the fact they all appear to be near-indistinguishable in their approach to Brexit and everything else.

That the Tory party members seem to be the Boris Johnson fanclub does indeed call their maturity into question.  The guy is an unprincipled egotist with a track-record of screwing things up, not to mention a history of racist comments.  But all the Tory party members seem to see is the funny hair and Etonian wit.  That say something about them as a collective.  Boris Johnson has 'charm' of course, though personally I don't trust people with charm when it comes to power - it's usually a deliberate distraction from something.

The Tory party should have just sorted it out in one day in a single meeting, and not inflicted this nonsense on us all.  But then they gave us the Brexit farce, and then the unncessary election, so inflicting their own internal psychodrama on the rest of the country is their 'thing' these days.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The Tory party should have just sorted it out in one day in a single meeting, and not inflicted this nonsense on us all.  But then they gave us the Brexit farce, and then the unncessary election, so inflicting their own internal psychodrama on the rest of the country is their 'thing' these days.

Very nicely put, exactly. Three years of this shit and no end in sight.

portec wrote:

handlebarcam wrote:

And yet these people, as Tory Party members, will get to decide who will be the next Prime Minister. Figures vary, but by some accounts British Cycling has more members, so it'd be more democratic if they got to choose. Girlguiding UK blows the Conservative Party out of the water, both in terms of numbers, and the maturity of its members.

I suspect your implication that it's undemocratic is disingenuous but I'll say it anyway. They're deciding on the next Conservative Party leader. It's not a general election. Whether the party is in government or opposition the process is the same. And it's basically the same process for other parties too ie. the party membership decides who is leader. And BTW, when you close out your comment with that last sentence I don't think you should be calling other people's maturity into question.

It's always amusing when someone says that the 'British way' is democratic, because well .. that's the way it's always been. It's a bit like China claiming that their one-party dictatorship is 'democratic', and then in response to the howls of protest at the effective disenfranchisement of a billion people or more, they just say, 'it's always been done that way'.

The UK isn't a democracy and never has been one. The next leader of the executive is about to be decided by 0.3% of the country. It is every bit as undemocratic when Labour does it, and I would call that out, too.

Claiming that pointing out the basic undemocratic nature of this is 'disingenuous' flags you up as a bit of a dick. Either that, or a Tory.

If you'll forgive the tautology.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

portec wrote:

handlebarcam wrote:

And yet these people, as Tory Party members, will get to decide who will be the next Prime Minister. Figures vary, but by some accounts British Cycling has more members, so it'd be more democratic if they got to choose. Girlguiding UK blows the Conservative Party out of the water, both in terms of numbers, and the maturity of its members.

I suspect your implication that it's undemocratic is disingenuous but I'll say it anyway. They're deciding on the next Conservative Party leader. It's not a general election. Whether the party is in government or opposition the process is the same. And it's basically the same process for other parties too ie. the party membership decides who is leader. And BTW, when you close out your comment with that last sentence I don't think you should be calling other people's maturity into question.

It's always amusing when someone says that the 'British way' is democratic, because well .. that's the way it's always been. It's a bit like China claiming that their one-party dictatorship is 'democratic', and then in response to the howls of protest at the effective disenfranchisement of a billion people or more, they just say, 'it's always been done that way'. The UK isn't a democracy and never has been one. The next leader of the executive is about to be decided by 0.3% of the country. It is every bit as undemocratic when Labour does it, and I would call that out, too. Claiming that pointing out the basic undemocratic nature of this is 'disingenuous' flags you up as a bit of a dick. Either that, or a Tory. If you'll forgive the tautology.

I once heard that the most dangerous phrase in the English language was "we've always done it this way".

hawkinspeter wrote:

I once heard that the most dangerous phrase in the English language was "we've always done it this way".

In my line of work, relying on that solely as a defense for using a particular method is begging for a disciplinary. Tbf, "we got lucky in the past" doesn't hold up as a legal defense if you kill someone in an industrial incident, so I fully agree.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I once heard that the most dangerous phrase in the English language was "we've always done it this way".

Closely followed by "But I was just following orders"

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It's always amusing when someone says that the 'British way' is democratic, because well .. that's the way it's always been. It's a bit like China claiming that their one-party dictatorship is 'democratic', and then in response to the howls of protest at the effective disenfranchisement of a billion people or more, they just say, 'it's always been done that way'.

I didn't say it's democratic because that's the way it's always been. For what it's worth I agree with you that China is not democratic. Maybe even the Chinese government would agree. It does seem unrelated to what I said though.

I said the process is to decide the next Conservative Party leader, and that it's not a general election so we don't all get to vote. And in a general election we technically vote for our local representative but that's a side issue. The process to select a party leader is the same whether that party is in government or not. It just so happens that they are in government and so the next party leader will also be prime minister. If we don't like the process then we're free to lobby, protest, etc to get the process changed. That's one of the benefits of living in a democracy.

Ideally we should all have a say in the leader of our country, but not everybody should get to decide the leader of any political party IMO; that should be a decision of the members. The success of the party rests in large part on that decision.

For anybody who thinks this is undemocratic, think about it this way. Obviously a large number of people have a vested interest in inflicting damage to any political party they don't support. Should everybody, including Labour, Lib Dem, Green, UKIP, BNP (if they're still a registered party) supporters, have a say in who should be the next leader of the Tory Party, or the Labour Party, or any other party? Should members of the LTDA have a say in who runs British Cycling?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

The UK isn't a democracy and never has been one.

I'm not sure if I should take this seriously or not. Britain is a world leader in democracy, and it's a big reason why Britain is one of the most successful countries in the world. The system is not perfect of course but I can't think of much a better one. And as I said above, we're free to lobby to have any part of the system changed. Try doing that in most countries in the world and see how long you live for. I didn't grow up in Britain and I'm frequently amazed how negatively some British people view their home country. You only have to look at how many people want to come and live here to see that most people in the world would disagree with your statement.

Feel free to agree or disagree with anything I said. But please make sure it's something that I actually did say and not just something you wanted me to say because it's easier for you to attack that instead.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Claiming that pointing out the basic undemocratic nature of this is 'disingenuous' flags you up as a bit of a dick. Either that, or a Tory.

If you'll forgive the tautology.

I'll go one better than that and forgive the name-calling

portec wrote:

Britain is a world leader in democracy

Aaaarrrrggghhhh, let us delete duplicate posts, FFS!!!!!