[Deleted User] wrote: » And after much request, I've offered my grounds for that belief above.
Deleted User wrote: » Your post above spells out his achievements and his achievements. It pinnacles at him navigating this world and becoming PM. That does not equate to him being a good PM. That's called a cult of personality.
Deleted User wrote: » And if you see the posts I quoted, I was answering their points directly - not a specific question on whether he would make a good PM.After 100 days, I think Johnson has defied expectation among the Conservative Party, its members, and, to a large extent, much of the general public too. For this reason, I infer that - if he were to win an outright majority - he would on balance prove to be an exceptional Prime Minister, far better than many who recently came before. Of course, this is an act of faith. Something catastrophic could indeed happen. But that would be true of every individual who achieves the post of Prime Minister.
quokula wrote: » Proroguing Parliament against his word, forced to reverse this after being found by the courts to have acted unlawfully and lied to the Queen
, losing almost every vote in parliament,
kicking a couple of dozen MPs out of the party and losing his majority,
losing the support of his confidence and supply partner, and
reneging on his promise to leave by October 31st or die in a ditch?
That exceeded expectations?
schmittel wrote: » I don't particularly like Boris Johnson but the idea that he is thick is complete nonsense. The fact that he achieved academic scholarships to both Eton and Oxford is sufficient evidence for me to consider him of above average intelligence. And whilst I understand the point of view that he was a poor Foreign Secretary in terms of results, in terms of political career advancement it is inarguable that his next role of Prime Minister was a promotion. I think it is laughable to say that the current UK Prime Minister is a failed politician.
Deleted User wrote: » Unlawful is not the same as illegal. The attorney general stated that it was a lawful act. Johnson acted in accordance with that advice. For that reason, the Queen was not lied to, as lying implies intent and foreknowledge.
quokula wrote: » The Scottish court ruling specifically stated that he misled the Queen, and this ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court. And there's no way you can seriously argue there was no intent or foreknowledge to his actions, it was a blatant intentional tactic to shut down parliament.
Deleted User wrote: » Thanks to the Remainer parliament, what do you expect?
Deleted User wrote: » Deservedly, any MP who chooses to hand power to the Opposition does not deserve to be in the governing party.
prawnsambo wrote: » A pragmatic leader won't dump his majority (albeit slim) at the first opportunity if he wants to get his legislative programme through.
Deleted User wrote: » It was intentional to shut down parliament, but based on legal advice given by Sir Geoffrey Cox. That fact is important in the overall context of things. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was disgracefully politicised.
Deleted User wrote: » A pragmatic leader looks ahead. Boris and Mr Cummings have done precisely that, which is why he'll harvest a thumping majority come 12 December.
Deleted User wrote: » Boris Johnson demonstrates those skills. For instance, it's not coincidental that he excelled at Oxford, both academically and as leader of the Union; that he is gifted in the art of language, oratory, and the classics; that he understands and applies charisma; that he is a talented author; that he has applied himself in different roles and, whilst he may not have made the most optimum choices at all times, that is true of everyone; and that he became Prime Minister.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was disgracefully politicised.
listermint wrote: » id disagree entirely with this statement. It is well known what money can lubricate, especially in education.
Deleted User wrote: » Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was disgracefully politicised.
Deleted User wrote: » Unlawful is not the same as illegal. The attorney general stated that it was a lawful act. Johnson acted in accordance with that advice.
Deleted User wrote: » Remainers imposed the anti-democratic Benn Act, which forced Boris Johnson to renege on his pledge. He didn't wilfully defy his own pledge, it was cynically rendered redunant by the Opposition.
schmittel wrote: » Are you saying that his privileged upbringing and wealth gave him an unfair advantage in securing these scholarships?
Deleted User wrote: » Why do people trash Johnson for being a liar? We know he's a liar, so are virtually all politicians - including all leaders of opposing political parties. What I want is a leader, and if that means using constructive deception, then I'm all for it.
The Daily Telegraph has been forced to correct a column written by Boris Johnson, after he falsely claimed the UK is set to “become the largest and most prosperous economy in this hemisphere”. The newspaper said that Johnson misrepresented long-term economic projections to give the impression that the British economy would overtake Germany “in our lifetimes” – despite no such data existing. Instead, the Telegraph admitted the claim was based on Johnson looking at a real economic forecast from the inter-governmental OECD organisation and predicting himself how the trends would continue. As a result, the claim “was the columnist’s own extrapolation of this data beyond the timeframe of the forecast”, the newspaper said. In addition, the newspaper admitted that the real economic data was only based on European countries, so in any case it could not justify Johnson’s claim about the UK economy outperforming all nations in the northern hemisphere.
Deleted User wrote: » Hannan is a very impressive intellectual. Why trash his reputation?
quokula wrote: » It's certainly possible. While he seemingly got into the most exclusive possible schools and colleges without a problem, he ultimately only graduated with a 2.1 degree.
Imreoir2 wrote: » Does this apply to Johnson himself? He voted against PM May and with the opposition not once but twice on her deal.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » On what basis?
prawnsambo wrote: » Of course not. It's like Jeremy Corbyn voting against the whip more times than with it. To be fair to Corbyn, he doesn't throw a strop when his own MPs emulate his approach. Johnson, not so much.
Boris Johnson, on the other hand, rather foolishly started a biblical quotation that he wasn't able to finish. He has already been challenged on his attitude to Islam. He was at least honest about his lack of adherence, when he said: "I suppose my own faith is a bit like trying to get Virgin Radio when you're driving through the Chilterns; it sort of comes and goes."
Downing Street has effectively blocked the publication of a potentially explosive parliamentary report on the security threat that Russia poses to the UK until after the general election. The 50-page document from the intelligence and security committee examines allegations that Kremlin-sponsored activity distorted the result of the 2016 EU referendum, but has to be cleared by No 10 before it can be released. Downing Street indicated on Monday that it would not approve publication before parliament was dissolved on Tuesday evening, meaning it cannot appear before the election on 12 December. A No 10 spokesman declined to outline when the report would eventually be published. “There are processes reports such as this have to go through before publication, and the committee is well-informed of these,” he said.
Enzokk wrote: » Well this isn't suspicious at all
Maxwellisation is the legal practice in English and Scots law that allows persons who are to be criticised in an official report to respond prior to publication, based on details of the criticism received in advance.