equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
I never noticed either. Clearly I need to reassess my political goals.is it just me that never noticed that they disappeared, or reappeared?
I never noticed either. Clearly I need to reassess my political goals.is it just me that never noticed that they disappeared, or reappeared?
is it just me that never noticed that they disappeared, or reappeared?
Does anyone care?is it just me that never noticed that they disappeared, or reappeared?
NoDoes anyone care?
Does anyone care?
I've got the same problem, Throbbing AngelBollocks - I can't see the tweets - anyone any ideas why not? They flash up momentarily when the page loads and then sod off.
I've got the same problem, Throbbing Angel
Had it before and it's gone without me doing anything, just as it appears without me doing anything. It's very annoying. There's a thread about it in the boards forum.
It might be overstating it to say the deep catalogue of shit will be forgotten by the time the election comes around, but our location in the electoral cycle must play a part. They can get away with a lot in the next two/three years, depending on when the GE is, as they can be very confident other shit will have happened by then.Nobody seems to care any more. It’s just shrugged off.
Really?
Must have at least a couple of legit phones plus a few burnersWell it's tricky when you've got a wife, several girlfriends and a coke dealer to juggle isn't it.
Yeah that rings a bell...didn’t he until recently have a long standing phone number that he hasn’t changed in years and was still published in Henley Conservative campaign literature from when he was MP there? I remember texting him. Hang on….
Yes, and that's why he's claiming he didn't remember the whats app messages, because he'd had to change his number. Or something like that anyway.didn’t he until recently have a long standing phone number that he hasn’t changed in years and was still published in Henley Conservative campaign literature from when he was MP there? I remember texting him. Hang on….
Bet that's exactly how he phrased it.Or something like that anyway.
For many Times readers, the name Brownlow has long been familiar: the kindly, wealthy, middle-aged gent who comes to the rescue of orphaned Oliver Twist in Dickens’s novel. In my youthful imagination “Mr Brownlow” triggered an association with benevolence.
Nothing I know about Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row suggests that the life peer is cast from a different mould. Self-made, he appears to devote his later years to good works. A deputy lieutenant of Berkshire, he has helped fund a school in Lesotho, a garden at the Chelsea Flower Show and Prince Charles’s Countryside Fund; and he has been a generous donor to the Conservative Party over many years.
He believes in Conservative aims and doesn’t seem to want anything for himself. As we nowknow from WhatsApp exchanges with the prime minister, his latest enthusiasm has been for some kind of great exhibition for Britain: not a bad idea, if rather romantic. His contribution is public-spirited.
Picture him, then, this weekend. Once flattered by Boris Johnson’s friendship, he is now caught in a stupid and horrible web of Downing Street’s making, his name plastered across the newspapers. David Brownlow can hope only to escape into the shadows once the media and political spotlight moves on.
The peer is merely the latest among scores of individuals who, over decades, have become victims of the kiss of the vampire: our present prime minister.
Consider Lord Geidt, Johnson’s independent adviser on ministers’ interests, this weekend struggling in the same web. Men of Christopher Geidt’s type — for ten years private secretary to the Queen — recoil from the idea of flouncing out or making an exhibition of themselves, of becoming the story.
Geidt will have thought his present post offered quiet stature and the interesting challenge of an almost judicial role. Picture him this weekend, accused of playing patsy to a furtive PM who allowed him to be misled: the whole thing will disgust and sadden a man who has built his reputation on discretion.
And from the sublime to, not quite the ridiculous, but a junior minister. On Friday Paul Scully, a business minister who has nothing to do with the “Wallpapergate” affair, was put up on the airwaves to defend the prime minister. He did the job in the only way you can: by asserting the unassertible and making himself look like an idiot. This will not destroy Scully’s career, but he’ll be remembered for the first time he came to our attention — and not in a good way.
His boss, Kwasi Kwarteng, has been much worse hurt: put up (during the Owen Paterson affair) to question the future of Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards whose work was beginning to spook the prime minister. This wasn’t Kwarteng’s idea: henceforward, though, he displays those indicative little toothmarks on his neck.
But these (and they include Paterson himself, now wrecked, and Paterson’s defender, the journalist and biographer Charles Moore) are only the most recent casualties among those who tangle with Boris Johnson. The list goes back a long, long way.
I’m put in mind of Marvin Gaye’s 1960s hit Abraham, Martin and John. “Has anybody seen. . . ” he sings in this homage to good men gunned down in American history. Has anybody seen Alex Allan (Geidt’s predecessor, who quit)? Dominic Grieve? David Gauke, Nick Soames, David Cameron (shafted over the referendum), Theresa May, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Allegra Stratton, Johnson’s own brother, Jo, shunted off to the Lords?
The list includes many of whom you may approve, some of whom you don’t, but they have this in common: for a while their lives touched Boris’s, after which they stormed, wobbled, were kicked, staggered, limped or walked away, variously embittered, alienated, vengeful, damaged, broken or resolved to turn the page.
Dominic Cummings, Lee Cain, Robert Buckland, Julian Smith, Theresa Villiers, Esther McVey, Andrea Leadsom, Arlene Foster. . . these were, or are, serving politicians and special advisers. Likely future victims are still in post, but has anyone seen Downing Street’s chief of staff Daniel Rosenfield recently? What are the odds for Simon Case, the latest cabinet secretary?
Over the personal side of Johnson’s life — the wives, girlfriends and children — I draw a veil, preferring not to punch at bruised lives. All, political and personal, share this: they got themselves mixed up with a superlative confidence trickster. Believe me, I know the confiding wink that for a moment makes you feel you’re the only person in the room. We can add a range of newspaper editors, magazine proprietors and party leaders, tricked to their disadvantage but who live to tell the tale.
British political history is replete with prime ministers’ unsuitable liaisons — think of Lord Kagan and Harold Wilson’s “Lavender” honours list, Bernie Ecclestone and Tony Blair, David Cameron and Lex Greensill — but with the present prime minister the polarities are reversed. He’s the one the others should have steered clear of.
Only (by luck or judgment) Michael Gove has managed both to dissociate himself from Johnson, yet work for him. Rishi Sunak needs to attempt the same. Jeremy Hunt was lucky Johnson didn’t offer him the job he wanted — foreign secretary — in his first cabinet. Rory Stewart did well to walk away from the start. Does Dominic Raab know he’s up a creek? Has Liz Truss realised she’s cruising for a bruising over the Northern Ireland protocol?
When contemplating this column I was asked whether we might finally step back from close focus on the present prime minister, look more widely at rascality and high public office and draw some general conclusions. But I must conclude that there are none. Johnson is a one-off.
Many who reach the top (think of Benjamin Disraeli, and to some degree David Lloyd George) were confidence tricksters and more, but Downing Street is now occupied by someone who is only a confidence trickster. Disraeli and Lloyd George had some kind of personal vision of the country Britain could be, and — often flying by the seat of their pants — used their wiles as persuaders, charmers and sometimes deceivers.
But it was for a purpose. Even the Pied Piper had a purpose. What will baffle future historians will be the essential purposelessness of this present and most persuasive of prime ministers. I do wonder whether there may be a simple satisfaction to be had from winning another person’s trust, or heart, or mind, or body: not for some useful purpose, but for its own sake, for the pleasure of control; getting the sparrow to peck from your hand. If so, the Conservative Party had better watch out, lest it become the Vampire of Downing Street’s greatest and ultimate triumph.