Even the Spectator putting the knife into Bojo?

Sponsored Links
SirGalahad said:
Sunak is another yes man. Has everyone forgotten why Sajid resigned? He was unwilling to have his advisors replaced by Cummings acolytes.
Click to expand...

Sunak is part of the Tufton street network

Sunak has ties to the Centre for Policy Studies, a Tufton Street thinktank with a history of casting doubt on climate change and opposing solutions to the issue. In 2016, he wrote a report for the group advocating the creation of low-tax “free ports”, an idea that the Johnson government has since taken up

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2020/02/13...government-and-tufton-street-lobbying-network
 
charliegolf said:
Commentators have felt for a while that Sunak, if not PM material at the mo, IS nevertheless immune to Cummings' control. Push that a bit further, if the gaffes keep coming from No 10, and Sunak COULD be Cummings' eventual assassin.
Click to expand...

The Tories now have big paymasters....Cummings and Matthew Elliott, wield great power because of their connections to libertarian groups and billionaires. As well as a pile of Russian money.

The Tory party nearly ran out of money when Theresa May was leader, so they don't want to upset their big donors.

There are lots of hidden agendas going on.....and Johnson will keep surviving all the time he delivers a Brexit that allows widespread deregulation.
 
But at least we're 'taking back control' :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
Sponsored Links
It wouldn't be fair for him to go now.
Far too many snow flakes to rile as he bungs brown envelopes to his rich friends.
>snigger<
 
Notch7 said:
Unlikely.

When Brexit shambles starts biting, Tories will pile the blame on Johnson.

Rats in a sack
Click to expand...
Ryler said:
nonsense
Click to expand...
Quoted for posterity.

The Tories will keep him around as long as he's seen to be a positive. That might mean a full term and beyond, but it's not impossible he gets burnt at a stake for one or more failings.
 
Chickens come ho. Me to roost :idea:

Associate professionally with Corbyn and his links friendship with terrorist groups will taint you ;)
 
Well, the couple of minutes I heard today were little better than last week's "efforts".......

I thought the icing on the cake was when BoJo thought he'd made a witty quip about SKS' misspoken word..........fudge me; BoJo fluffs his lines in pretty much every single sentence :ROFLMAO:
 
Brigadier said:
Well, the couple of minutes I heard today were little better than last week's "efforts".......

I thought the icing on the cake was when BoJo thought he'd made a witty quip about SKS' misspoken word..........fudge me; BoJo fluffs his lines in pretty much every single sentence :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

There's nothing like an entitled Eton schooling to project a great message of confidence, however bad things are.

The adage "it doesn't matter what you say, so long as you say it confidently enough"

Boris is so bad now it's an embarrassment.
 
Brigadier said:
Well, the couple of minutes I heard today were little better than last week's "efforts".......

I thought the icing on the cake was when BoJo thought he'd made a witty quip about SKS' misspoken word..........fudge me; BoJo fluffs his lines in pretty much every single sentence :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I don't think he could have done worse.

From the Guardian

"PMQs is often derided as a pointless charade, but one of the better justifications for it is that it ensures that the prime minister of the day is always across the most pressing problems facing government. Knowing that the PM could face an embarrassing question about a policy failure, the No 10 system ensures that by 11.30am on Wednesday he or she has got an answer.

And most recent prime ministers would have ensured that, if they were going to go into the chamber to face questions about why thousand of Britons could not get tests for a pandemic virus, they would at least know why. Gordon Brown would have been up all night researching reagent supply chains. Tony Blair would have sat down for a tutorial with the CMO, as if he were in a barrister’s chambers. Theresa May would have delivered the death stare to officials unable to provide a coherent gloss on the PHE statistics. David Cameron would have grasped the nub of the problem and rehearsed a word-perfect explanation. And Margaret Thatcher? God help any minister or official unable to supply an answer to the most detailed question about what went wrong.

But today Boris Johnson did not really seem to have much of a clue as to why people were finding it difficult to get tests. As Sir Keir Starmer pointed out, this morning the government has been offering a wholly new explanation from the one available yesterday, but Johnson could not explain what was going on, and did not even seem particularly curious. If he had offered an honest, coherent explanation, he would have got a decent hearing. But instead he resorted to a half-hearted attack on Starmer for disrespecting the “heroic” efforts of NHS test and trace. Starmer sounded clear, reasonable and in touch with people’s concerns; he is making winning at PMQ look easy. Johnson did briefly reprise his rather irrelevant teaching unions/Brexit jibes against Starmer at the end, but his main complaint was that Starmer was being unhelpful, and when the worst thing you can say about the opposition is that they are opposing the government, then you have a problem.

That said, Johnson was not as hopeless as last week (which would be difficult), and his message would appeal to die-hard Tory loyalists who are susceptible to the argument that Labour is talking the country down. In other words, it was core vote messaging. But normally you would expect this from a PM behind in the polls at the end of a parliament. Johnson has more than four more years to run, and his poll ratings are holding up much better than they would be if PMQs were the decisive factor."

We have a PM who is aping many of Trumps characteristics of being permanently in campaign mode - hammer the same message over and over again - preach to the faithful. The objecive is not to convince the other side or win the argument as much as keeping your side on board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top