advertisement


A thread to catalogue the eloquence, dignity, diplomacy and wisdom of Boris Johnson III

Status
Not open for further replies.
(from BBC):
The PM says he is trying to set out the context, not to mitigate or excuse what happened.

He says it was "appropriate" to thank staff who were leaving for the work they had done.

Obviously, those who followed his rules, and were not allowed into care homes, hospitals, etc to say goodbye to a loved one for the last time will agree....
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsB
Stuart Frazer said:
There is no evidence of a high wage economy, especially at the bottom of the end of the labour market. Johnson sees 'high wage' as an aspiration, with no plan or actions to get there. Action speaks louder than words. If Johnson believed in higher wages, he would mandate the Real Living Wage now and have it reviewed regularly during this time of high inflation.
Click to expand...
When Johnson, and people like him, refer to the UK as a 'high wage economy' they do so in comparison to countires like India, most African, and some South American countries. Compared to the Third World countries, the UK is a high wage (and high cost) economy. Compared to our First World peers, not so much. This is blithely ignored.
 
Jamie said:
(from BBC):
The PM says he is trying to set out the context, not to mitigate or excuse what happened.

He says it was "appropriate" to thank staff who were leaving for the work they had done.

Obviously, those who followed his rules, and were not allowed into care homes, hospitals, etc to say goodbye to a loved one for the last time will agree....
Click to expand...
Indeed. And numerous colleagues of mine, and of my wife, left for pastures new without any ceremony beyond a slightly awkward Teams call.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Indeed. And numerous colleagues of mine, and of my wife, left for pastures new without any ceremony beyond a slightly awkward Teams call.
Click to expand...

That happened a few times with my colleagues. People who had been working for the same employer for 30+ years, sent a Moonpig card, virtually signed and a Teams call. S**t, but rules were rules.

In addition, people needed in the the office during lockdown came in and went home as soon as they'd finished for the day. The events didn't "go on longer than necessary", they were totally unnecessary.
 
Stuart Frazer said:
There is no evidence of a high wage economy, especially at the bottom of the end of the labour market. Johnson sees 'high wage' as an aspiration, with no plan or actions to get there. Action speaks louder than words. If Johnson believed in higher wages, he would mandate the Real Living Wage now and have it reviewed regularly during this time of high inflation.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. He means high wage economy for him and his mates and the City.
 
Johnson’s performance in the Commons is as hilarious as it is shameless and cowardly. “I wasn’t there”, “I was appalled at some of the revelations”.
 
TheDecameron said:
Boris Johnson said “he was appalled at some of the revelations”.
Click to expand...

He's a very well-practiced liar. Very good at it. As shameless as Trump. But a lot more polished thanks to his upbringing.

A delusional farce in the Commons. Any normal person would feel shame. Johnson relishes the chance to be the centre of attraction and lie again. Delights in lying and getting people to swallow his lies.
 
Bob McC said:
They were in his house FFS!
Click to expand...
And no mention of the ABBA piss up celebration in his flat the night he and Carrie put Dom out on his ear with a cardboard box for his possessions.

What the Tories are telling the public to accept unquestioningly is that the ministerial code and norms of behaviour for a Prime Minister have now been torn up, that misconduct in public office is without sanction other than at a general election which may be years away.
 
The Tories are brazening it out, even jeering one of their own in the Commons for having the temerity to challenge Johnson’s illegal behaviour, quibbling over the detail and sowing confusion.
 
By David Allen Green... nail on head. Boris takes no responsibility for anything and never has.

The Prime Minister says he “takes full responsibility” – but what does this mean in constitutional terms, if anything?

25th May 2022

Today we take in the now-published Sue Gray report.
The quick-takes have already been given and a parliamentary statement has come and gone, as the rest of us who have an interest digest the details of the report.
This post is not about the report in detail, but about the current Prime Minister’s response.
It is a response that Boris Johnson often gives at times of trouble.
It is the response of saying that he ‘takes full responsibility’.
What could this phrase mean?

Note the ‘responsibility’ he purports to take is ‘full’ – and so, presumably, this is intended to mean something (or to convey that it means something) distinct from taking mere responsibility.
Oh no – this is ‘full’ responsibility.
Rhetorically, it is an impressive statement – to which some may even nod-along.
But it is hard, if not impossible, to see what it means.

For example: what actually is different as a consequence of Johnson saying he ‘takes full responsibility’?
What things change that otherwise would not change, but for the Prime Minister saying that he ‘takes full responsibility’.
What is different from the Prime Minister saying instead “I am not taking full responsibility” or “I am not taking any responsibility whatsoever?”.
There is not any real difference; nothing changes.

If the Prime Minister instead said a sequence of nonsense words, it would have the same constitutional import.
This is because, in constitutional terms, when the Prime Minister says he is taking ‘full responsibility’, he is saying nothing meaningful.
In constitutional terms, the position is exactly the same after the moment Johnson says it, as when he does not say it.
It is instead a rhetorical device – a political tactic to get him through an awkward moment, cynically giving the impression to the listener that something grave is being conceded or admitted, when nothing is being accepted at all.
For, in constitutional terms, a Prime Minister taking ‘ full responsibility’for a serious wrong is to perform an action, rather than to say a thing.
The action the Prime Minister would perform is to resign.
And if there is not a resignation after a serious wrong then ‘ full responsibility’ has not been taken.
Indeed, by using it as a deft rhetorical trick, Johnson evades taking full responsibility.

So next time you hear the current Prime Minister assure you and others that he ‘takes full responsibility’, substitute for that phase a sequence of random words and sounds, for it will have the same constitutional meaning.

That is to say: no constitutional meaning at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top