Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I agree. Usually you wouldn't keep saying 'in my opinion' because in this kind of debate that goes without saying. We all understand that for the most part, we are all expressing our opinions. However if you are trying to claim that it is wrong for someone else (for example, the Tory MP Henry Smith) to present their opinion, and when challenged, the grounds you give boil down to that his opinion differs from what you believe to be true and therefore he shouldn't be saying it, then you need to be very clear about the difference between your opinion (or: your beliefs) and an established fact.
That's a fair point. Rather than focusing on bumbling old Boris, I think opponents of the Tories need to focus on the current lot: Sunak, Braverman, Anderson and the rest.
He's entitled to say it but either out of touch or playing to a very specific electorate. Last I heard, about 9% of the public thought Brexit was going well.
Enjoying the news from The Times this morning that the right of the Conservative party are allegedly up in arms about Boris Johnson having to explain new admissions of social gatherings at Chequers during lockdowns. How dare he be called to account to explain himself? It's a witch-hunt, etc etc. Rishi will pay! They'll force an early election.
Absolute melts, the lot of them. Do it. Force an early election and do the country a massive favour.
You forgot to add the 'in my opinion' at the end of that sentence.
Now it's not clear to me that Tim Farron's comment were about Brexit: There are other issues (such as law and order) on which the LibDems view Tory policies as damaging to our open society, so it's very plausible that he was equally referring to that. But let's run with your assumption that it was all about Brexit: Sure, you personally believe that Brexit needlessly damaged the UK. That is your opinion. But there are many other people (including myself) who are not of that opinion. Therefore Tim Farron's comments are controversial: Not everyone would agree with them! Of course, I'll still totally defend his right to say them, because we are a democracy, and hopefully some of us are able to distinguish fact from opinion!
To my mind, the issue is that you and @nw1 are showing double standards in your posts: You're objecting to a Conservative expressing his opinions in his resignation statement, while supporting a LibDem doing exactly the same thing!
It's the language, I think. Farron and Clegg are using critical but neutral language. Smith is explicitly praising something that a large percentage of the population take exception to. That's the difference.
If Smith had made comments using more neutral, less excessively-emotional language such as "I am glad to have served under David Cameron who showed the leadership to put the country to back on track" or even "I am glad to have served under Boris Johnson who steered us through the Covid crisis" then, even though I disagreed with Cameron and Osborne's approach, and didn't think much of Boris as a PM, I'd have had no objection.
I also think that more generally, parties, for their own sake, need to avoid coming down on one side on highly divisive issues if they want to appeal to certain sections of the population. (Similarly, it would be a mistake for Labour to be too pro-EU for the moment - as they have to appeal to a wide section of the electorate to win the election).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Enjoying the news from The Times this morning that the right of the Conservative party are allegedly up in arms about Boris Johnson having to explain new admissions of social gatherings at Chequers during lockdowns. How dare he be called to account to explain himself? It's a witch-hunt, etc etc. Rishi will pay! They'll force an early election.
Absolute melts, the lot of them. Do it. Force an early election and do the country a massive favour.
It does seem to be all Boris, Boris, Boris all over the front pages this morning, one way or another.
The Guardian critical, the Mail and Express pro-Boris, and the Telegraph neutral - and the latter is perhaps telling.
Of course one could argue that endless Boris coverage is actually benefiting the right and the Tories, because the Tories can claim "we're a sensible party now, we've got rid of Bad Old Boris". This is why I think that it would be a mistake for the left to focus too much on the exploits of Mr Johnson at the expense of the wrong-doing of the Sunak government. One more story about Boris is one less story about Sunak and Braverman.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
... and then I read this, funnily enough. I'd put the Times down as a fairly neutral paper, certainly not supportive of the Tory right - but given practically all the papers are going on about Boris this morning, I'm inclined to think you're correct.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Cruella has absolutely no shame. An arrogant, conceited, egotistical hard-right authoritarian who self-evidently believes she can do no wrong. I wonder whether she is that different from Meloni or Le Pen. The stupidity of Fareham and Waterlooville Conservative Association in selecting her over the more middle-of-the-road Flick Drummond is outstanding. It would have been a golden opportunity to remove her from Parliament and help reset the party to be something more centre-right.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
But there's little point in saying this now. We are where we are and it's more important to make the best of where we are now than in looking back into what might have been.
I do have to perhaps disagree there (depending on what your position is): if having a closer relationship with the EU will be in the interests of the country, we need to work towards it in the medium-term. I don't think we should accept having a Hard Brexit and poor relations with the EU in perpetuity. Instead, the country needs to adopt humility and admit that Hard Brexit was a mistake - but right now is not the time to do this, admittedly. The current lot, who still see it as a "success story" of theirs, need to be replaced before any progress can be made - and it should be done when adopting a less anti-EU line will not risk losing significant votes in the next election. (So I can see why Labour are not adopting a pro-EU line for the moment).
Of course one could argue that endless Boris coverage is actually benefiting the right and the Tories, because the Tories can claim "we're a sensible party now, we've got rid of Bad Old Boris". This is why I think that it would be a mistake for the left to focus too much on the exploits of Mr Johnson at the expense of the wrong-doing of the Sunak government. One more story about Boris is one less story about Sunak and Braverman.
Boris Johnson is a malignant ghost that haunts one half of the party and powers the other half. Definitely similarities with the relationship(s) the GOP has with Trump.
Wouldn't the obvious logical reason why the Times published the story yesterday be because they are reporting events that have actually happened in the last few days: Boris Johnson has actually been referred to the police! And it's kinda traditional that newspapers report current news stories that are likely to be of significant interest to readers when the stories happen! That's why they are called NEWSpapers!
Sunak’s quietly announced that he doesn’t think Braverman did anything wrong in pressuring civil servants to get her out of a public speed awareness course.
A decision which handily goes under the radar whilst everyone else is flapping about Johnson.
Sunak’s quietly announced that he doesn’t think Braverman did anything wrong in pressuring civil servants to get her out of a public speed awareness course.
A decision which handily goes under the radar whilst everyone else is flapping about Johnson.
Yes, absolutely no need to investigate what appears to be a cut and dried breach of the ministerial code
And after Johnson’s own lawyers (well, the ones we’re paying for) dobbed him in over illegal meetings at Chequers, quite by coincidence his sister has gone on LBC to defend him by saying “every time I went to Chequers all the rules were followed”. You couldn’t make this stuff up
I do have to perhaps disagree there (depending on what your position is): if having a closer relationship with the EU will be in the interests of the country, we need to work towards it in the medium-term. I don't think we should accept having a Hard Brexit and poor relations with the EU in perpetuity. Instead, the country needs to adopt humility and admit that Hard Brexit was a mistake - but right now is not the time to do this, admittedly. The current lot, who still see it as a "success story" of theirs, need to be replaced before any progress can be made - and it should be done when adopting a less anti-EU line will not risk losing significant votes in the next election. (So I can see why Labour are not adopting a pro-EU line for the moment).
I wasn't clear enough, sorry. I agree with you, all I'm saying is that I'm fed up with people (not here) looking back to 2016 and wringing their hands, I agree that "Hard Brexit" was wrong and we need to go more down the line of Rishi Sunak with the EU than Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and that Frost person. Labour has to appeal to anti-immigration Leave voters but has to get its line right or it won't get my vote, although as you say that's relatively unlikely because it will probably be the least worst option anyway, and most likely to defeat Esther McVey.
No, we need to put a theoretical stake in the ground, stop worrying about what has been, and look forward. Forget the nonsense about "lots of trade deals" and "oven ready" and so on. Get grown-ups in charge across the board and do what's best for the country in practice rather than following some ideology.
Sunak’s quietly announced that he doesn’t think Braverman did anything wrong in pressuring civil servants to get her out of a public speed awareness course.
Quietly? On a quick check, it's the top online headline story of every major newspaper (except for the Mail and the Express), as well as the BBC and ITV news sites.
I can only assume you were using some new meaning of the word 'quietly' that I wasn't previously familiar with.
Quietly? On a quick check, it's the top online headline story of every major newspaper (except for the Mail and the Express), as well as the BBC and ITV news sites.
Implausible. If Sunak was attempting to do it quietly, a better strategy would be to wait some weeks for all the furore to die down and then announce it while some other news story unrelated to Government sleaze was dominating the headlines. Sunak is not stupid, and would certainly be fully aware of that - and assuming he makes even a cursory glance at the papers, he would equally have been fully aware that any announcement he makes about Braverman today or tomorrow would be guaranteed to make news headlines.
Seems more plausible to me that the announcement today is simply because he's now made his decision about the matter. You would after all expect it to take a few days for someone to do the checks needed to come to a decision, and that matches the timescale we've seen.
Whether his decision is the ethically correct one is of course a whole different question - and one to which we'll probably never completely know the answer, since none of us is privy to the detailed discussions and explanations that presumably took place.
To be fair to Sunak, he has tried to improve relations with the EU, got an agreement with them regarding Northern Ireland, and is trying to get a deal for the EU airport passport gates to accept UK passports (according to various reports). That's about as much as we could have expected from the Tories in repairing the adverse effects of the Hard Brexit. So at least we are moving in the right direction, meaning that Labour don't have to be afraid of being too pro-EU when they get in next year.
I didn’t say he’s successfully done it quietly. But his government have released bad news a few times now on days when Johnson’s latest scandal has been dominating the news.
I’m sure the timing was entirely deliberate. Political parties employ a lot of spin doctors on a lot of money to avoid “coincidence”.
Well on the subject of stakes, having bled the UK dry, I would suggest (silver bullets, holy water, crucifix as optional extra's) through any of the present Gov'ts hearts would be an enticing prospect...although finding the heart in the first place would be problematic
You can't expect news not to be reported, but you can release statements/releases at times to try and reduce the coverage.
Sure, the BBC alerted me on Breaking News and no doubt others did too, but if all the opinion shows and papers write about Boris later then mission accomplished.
MPs will get their own briefing on WhatsApp to tell them what to say, or not to say.
Implausible. If Sunak was attempting to do it quietly, a better strategy would be to wait some weeks for all the furore to die down and then announce it while some other news story unrelated to Government sleaze was dominating the headlines. Sunak is not stupid, and would certainly be fully aware of that - and assuming he makes even a cursory glance at the papers, he would equally have been fully aware that any announcement he makes about Braverman today or tomorrow would be guaranteed to make news headlines.
Seems more plausible to me that the announcement today is simply because he's now made his decision about the matter. You would after all expect it to take a few days for someone to do the checks needed to come to a decision, and that matches the timescale we've seen.
Whether his decision is the ethically correct one is of course a whole different question - and one to which we'll probably never completely know the answer, since none of us is privy to the detailed discussions and explanations that presumably took place.
If it was not for him, they wouldn't have had such a majority in 2019 - and now he's out of power, he's the perfect way to distract people, because many of us are still obsessed with him, one way or another.
If it was not for him, they wouldn't have had such a majority in 2019 - and now he's out of power, he's the perfect way to distract people, because many of us are still obsessed with him, one way or another.
Implausible. If Sunak was attempting to do it quietly, a better strategy would be to wait some weeks for all the furore to die down and then announce it while some other news story unrelated to Government sleaze was dominating the headlines.
The problem with that approach is that the furore wasn't going to die down - the longer he left it then the more PMQs, etc. that he would have to face, and the more evasive he would appear to be.
His predecessor bar one learned that lesson the hard way.
Good news that we might be getting a decent sized battery factory, albeit with almost £1bn of taxpayer money to entice the company to come here over Spain!
I wonder if this will lead into an announcement of us mining lithium in the south west, which would make sense but perhaps cause some controversy.
Good news that we might be getting a decent sized battery factory, albeit with almost £1bn of taxpayer money to entice the company to come here over Spain!
I wonder if this will lead into an announcement of us mining lithium in the south west, which would make sense but perhaps cause some controversy.
Well as I see it, I'm simply trying to be even-handed, and give criticism of politicians only where and to the extent that it's due. And also to look for the most plausible explanation of events, rather than constantly looking for the worst possible interpretation.
But I feel reasonably sure that in 18 month's time, the Prime Minister will be a certain Mr. K. Starmer, so I guess that - assuming I'm not mistaken about that - it won't be long before we'll find out how these debates go when it's a Labour Government trying to solve all the UK's problems, and doubtless running into similar difficulties
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The UK's Covid response also damaged our economy and arguably caused division, yet I notice you haven't objected to Henry Smith mentioning our Covid response in his resignation statement: You only object to his mentioning Brexit! Why the inconsistency? Are you sure it's not related to broadly agreeing with our Covid response but disagreeing with Brexit?
Well as I see it, I'm simply trying to be even-handed, and give criticism of politicians only where and to the extent that it's due. And also to look for the most plausible explanation of events, rather than constantly looking for the worst possible interpretation.
But I feel reasonably sure that in 18 month's time, the Prime Minister will be a certain Mr. K. Starmer, so I guess that - assuming I'm not mistaken about that - it won't be long before we'll find out how these debates go when it's a Labour Government trying to solve all the UK's problems, and doubtless running into similar difficulties
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The UK's Covid response also damaged our economy and arguably caused division, yet I notice you haven't objected to Henry Smith mentioning our Covid response in his resignation statement: You only object to his mentioning Brexit! Why the inconsistency? Are you sure it's not related to broadly agreeing with our Covid response but disagreeing with Brexit?
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
