PM Boris Johnson - monster thread for a monster twat

[Dystopiary]

Despite already previously admitting that he'd repeatedly lied about this is Parliament, and repeatedly been told it's not true, he's again said there are "more people in work than there were before the pandemic."

 

[teuchter]

Well that's not answering is it?
So you agree Johnson should resign then?

You've not answered mine, and now you've added a new question.

"Should" Johnson resign? "Should" he, from whose point of view? From my point of view, or from the point of view of the greater good, I don't see much benefit of him resigning because he'd likely be replaced by someone no better. From the Tories' point of view? I don't know - that's their problem not mine.

 

[killer b]

To be fair, I'm more bothered by BJ's denials that he was at any events, than the events themselves, which in my (and others') opinion weren't such a big deal. If he'd been more straight at the beginning, and said that he briefly attended various workplace leaving drinks at various times, and that he didn't consider these to be transgressions of the rules, then it would be different.

fair point, the lying in this case has exacerbated the original offence - but politicians lying in general isn't something people are much bothered with, as the zero political impact all those '10 times Boris Johnson lied to parliament!!!' clip compilation memes grifters share on the internet for clicks demonstrate.

 

[Storm Fox]

You've not answered mine, and now you've added a new question.

"Should" Johnson resign? "Should" he, from whose point of view? From my point of view, or from the point of view of the greater good, I don't see much benefit of him resigning because he'd likely be replaced by someone no better. From the Tories' point of view? I don't know - that's their problem not mine.

To answer your question; you tend to give answers to questions on this forum that are quite different from a lot of the other members tend to give. So I have no idea what your answer would be and would like you to clarify this.

Regarding Johnson resigning, how about from your point of view first and then go from there.

 

[teuchter]

To answer your question; you tend to give answers to questions on this forum that are quite different from a lot of the other members tend to give. So I have no idea what your answer would be and would like you to clarify this.

Regarding Johnson resigning, how about from your point of view first and then go from there.

Of course I don't think it's "OK" to lie to parliament. Should I also clarify that I don't think it's OK to mug elderly people, seeing as most people in this forum don't think it's ok and I sometimes don't agree with them about other things?

I've already said what I think about BJ resigning -

From my point of view, or from the point of view of the greater good, I don't see much benefit of him resigning because he'd likely be replaced by someone no better.

 

[stavros]

he'd likely be replaced by someone no better.

That may well be true, but I don't think anyone in any party has the bizarre cut-through with so many of the electorate that Johnson seems to.

 

[teuchter]

fair point, the lying in this case has exacerbated the original offence - but politicians lying in general isn't something people are much bothered with, as the zero political impact all those '10 times Boris Johnson lied to parliament!!!' clip compilation memes grifters share on the internet for clicks demonstrate.

Yes - I was talking about what bothered me rather than what might bother "people".

One thing I've noticed reading comments elsewhere is that a lot of the people most vocally outraged about partygate are coming at it from the "the restrictions were pointless and this proves he didn't even believe they were himself" rather than "he was getting drunk while I did the right thing and didn't visit my granny". For that reason, I think it could have some significance but from a slightly different angle than what is being emphasised here.

 

[teuchter]

That may well be true, but I don't think anyone in any party has the bizarre cut-through with so many of the electorate that Johnson seems to.

That might be true ... but if you take the view that removing him would harm the tories' appeal to the electorate, then that doesn't seem compatible with the view that this stuff is doing major harm to the tories.

 

[elbows]

Yes - I was talking about what bothered me rather than what might bother "people".

One thing I've noticed reading comments elsewhere is that a lot of the people most vocally outraged about partygate are coming at it from the "the restrictions were pointless and this proves he didn't even believe they were himself" rather than "he was getting drunk while I did the right thing and didn't visit my granny". For that reason, I think it could have some significance but from a slightly different angle than what is being emphasised here.

I'm glad I dont frequent some of the places it sounds like you do. I have no trouble believing that there are loud people coming at this from the angle you describe, but there are a lot of people who are genuinely coming from the 'we did the right thing, he didnt' angle. Which is why the likes of Starmer make the speeches they make in response to Johnsons statements, rather than something altogether different that panders to the 'pandemic restrictions were unnecessary' shitheads.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I'm glad I dont frequent some of the places it sounds like you do.

He hangs around bathrooms that don't have locks on their doors.

 

[xenon]

Surely this is all over, the partygate thing. I guess we'll find out if there are a sizeable section of Tory voters who will abstain or protest vote but I don't really see it.

No one else has much impact on what happens. Though will continue to offer my opinion of the Tories, the cabinet and Johnson if it comes up in conversation. personally I'm not wasting any more mental energy on getting outraged by it.

I will just say though I told you so though. That is Johnson wouldn't resign this side of May. And now not even then. All the wank about letters to the 1922 committee was just news churn.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Tory crackdown on those who mislead Parliament. Whilst attempting to smear everyone in Parliament as fellow liars has a superficial appeal, I can’t see the longer term value in keeping the issue of probity on the boil. Still, another cunt has nailed his colours to the mast…

 

[Ax^]

Yes - I was talking about what bothered me rather than what might bother "people".

One thing I've noticed reading comments elsewhere is that a lot of the people most vocally outraged about partygate are coming at it from the "the restrictions were pointless and this proves he didn't even believe they were himself" rather than "he was getting drunk while I did the right thing and didn't visit my granny". For that reason, I think it could have some significance but from a slightly different angle than what is being emphasised here.

for twats yes for people who lost people it will be a more lingering point of anger

you kinds agreeing with ress mogg atm " its just fluff"

over 100 thousand people died

don't think the anger in not be able to be at their funerals is going to disappear

as he is funny and got brexit done

 

[elbows]

Well it sounds like the tory calculations about the expected vote did not reach the same complacent conclusion that I had assumed would be the case this time, so now they are trying to avoid that vote taking place at all for now!!!

I am most amused that I read the possible spectrum of voting intentions wrongly.

Partygate: Boris Johnson says full facts needed before vote on investigation

Labour wants MPs to investigate if the PM misled them - but Boris Johnson says a decision should wait.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bingoman]

Just read that Johnson intends to fight the General Election

 

[Raheem]

Just read that Johnson intends to fight the General Election

What, as in try to prevent it happening? I can believe it.

 

[kabbes]

To be fair, I'm more bothered by BJ's denials that he was at any events, than the events themselves, which in my (and others') opinion weren't such a big deal. If he'd been more straight at the beginning, and said that he briefly attended various workplace leaving drinks at various times, and that he didn't consider these to be transgressions of the rules, then it would be different.

To play devil’s advocate for a moment: does it actually make any difference what politicians tell each other in parliament? Has any parliamentarian ever changed their mind after hearing somebody on the other side present a “fact”? Surely the decision-making happens long before that point, in conversations, meetings and deals outside the chamber. And does anybody other than parliamentarians pay any attention to what they tell each other in parliament? Don’t people just treat it as noise from schoolboys and schoolgirls?

If you’re talking about straight-up lying to the public in television statements then that’s a different thing, but I still wonder if anybody ever expects that the politician on their telly is giving them the bare truth.

By contrast, people do get really worked up by hypocrisy and by being made to feel a mug, That’s where the cut-through is, I think,

 

[contadino]

To play devil’s advocate for a moment: does it actually make any difference what politicians tell each other in parliament? Has any parliamentarian ever changed their mind after hearing somebody on the other side present a “fact”? Surely the decision-making happens long before that point, in conversations, meetings and deals outside the chamber. And does anybody other than parliamentarians pay any attention to what they tell each other in parliament? Don’t people just treat it as noise from schoolboys and schoolgirls?

If you’re talking about straight-up lying to the public in television statements then that’s a different thing, but I still wonder if anybody ever expects that the politician on their telly is giving them the bare truth.

By contrast, people do get really worked up by hypocrisy and by being made to feel a mug, That’s where the cut-through is, I think,

That would be fine, if parliament was conducted behind closed doors. What they say gets reported on and it sways the electorate. That - and the rule that says they can't call each other liars - is why politicians lie.

 

[cupid_stunt]

With Johnson in India, I'll LMAO if the opposition motion passes by one vote.

 

[killer b]

it sways the electorate.

not really convinced much that goes on in parliament right now sways the electorate tbh.

 

[_Russ_]

Repeat a certain behavior often enough and it becomes Normal, we have a government that has normalized lies, corruption and dishonesty....a quick tut and turn to the page on Katie Price's tits or the FTSE 100 (delete as applicable)

 

[teuchter]

To play devil’s advocate for a moment: does it actually make any difference what politicians tell each other in parliament? Has any parliamentarian ever changed their mind after hearing somebody on the other side present a “fact”? Surely the decision-making happens long before that point, in conversations, meetings and deals outside the chamber. And does anybody other than parliamentarians pay any attention to what they tell each other in parliament? Don’t people just treat it as noise from schoolboys and schoolgirls?

If you’re talking about straight-up lying to the public in television statements then that’s a different thing, but I still wonder if anybody ever expects that the politician on their telly is giving them the bare truth.

By contrast, people do get really worked up by hypocrisy and by being made to feel a mug, That’s where the cut-through is, I think,

I wouldn't say what they say in parliament is so different from what they say on TV. Both just different versions of saying stuff in public and on record.

 

[killer b]

Repeat a certain behavior often enough and it becomes Normal, we have a government that has normalized lies, corruption and dishonesty....a quick tut and turn to the page on Katie Price's tits or the FTSE 100 (delete as applicable)

what government in living memory hasn't normalised lies, corruption and dishonesty? These guys are maybe a bit more resistant to resignation once they get caught, but otherwise it's more or less business as usual

 

[kabbes]

I wouldn't say what they say in parliament is so different from what they say on TV. Both just different versions of saying stuff in public and on record.

But I’m suggesting that either way, it doesn’t make a massive amount of difference.

 

[_Russ_]

what government in living memory hasn't normalised lies, corruption and dishonesty? These guys are maybe a bit more resistant to resignation once they get caught, but otherwise it's more or less business as usual

Its a matter of degree, if you dont think this lot are exceptional id advise a check up from the neck up

 

[Pickman's model]

what government in living memory hasn't normalised lies, corruption and dishonesty? These guys are maybe a bit more resistant to resignation once they get caught, but otherwise it's more or less business as usual

not even tony blair set up a fast track to award contracts to his mates shovelling billions of pounds of public money into their pockets.

 

[teqniq]

Interesting little thread here. I didn't know the vermin chief whip Andrew Mitchell is refusing to vote in defiance of a three line whip. Not a good look for Johnson maybe...

 

[belboid]

Interesting little thread here. I didn't know the vermin chief whip Andrew Mitchell is refusing to vote in defiance of a three line whip. Not a good look for Johnson maybe...

Ex chief whip and the amendment has been withdrawn anyway

 

[teqniq]

Ex chief whip and the amendment has been withdrawn anyway

Doh apologies, misread one of the tweets and didn't realise amendment withdrawn.

 

[teqniq]

Free vote now. Maybe makes things more interesting: