[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Simster]

Yes

No, it really isn't. It is a disaster zone.

 

[WATFORD zero]

What response do you think I want?

I’ve plenty of sympathy for people who were hoodwinked by the lies, or scared by the press into voting for this mob of chancers.

But IF you are someone who continues even now, to support them, defend them or make excuses for their proven dishonest, corrupt, undemocratic behaviour, then I’m quite comfortable with you taking offence at my assessment, and am really not interested in any kind of response. You’d be literally beyond reason.

I have to say that you are giving Johnson voters more leeway than I would when you describe them as 'hoodwinked'.

Johnson had a long documented history as a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical ****. It now seems to come as a surprise to some that we have a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** as a Prime Minister, even though that was what they voted for.

And I'm not trying to insult anyone or persuade anyone to do anything, just pointing out if someone considered Johnson's history prior to the election, then the current situation would be exactly what they would have expected

 

[Hotchilidog]

You've got to love First Past the Post, if you're a Tory, SNP or sometimes Labour supporter.
View attachment 143724

Domestically this is the biggest issue if we are to have a vaguely representative government. Obviously a topic for another thread but how this government was able to get an 80 seat majority with less than 50% of the vote and who knows how small a percentage of the actual electorate is a disgrace.

 

[keaton]

If people are going to play the "it's your fault we've got Johnson" blame game, I hope they're also going to be targetting those who repeatedly played Corbyn as a credible PM candidate when it was obvious to most he was about an uncredible as you could get.

By being hoodwinked into believing Corbyn had any chance of getting to Number 10, they allowed Johnson the free pass to waltz there pretty much unchallenged.

(Reminder: I did not vote for, nor could I ever vote for Johnson. Neither did I, nor could I, vote for Corbyn)

Aren't people supposed to vote for who they agree with? Who else were they supposed to vote for?

Also I struggle to understand a world where Johnson was ever credible, that's the point, this isn't a left/right thing, nothing Johnson had done prior to bring elected suggested any different to what has happened since

 

[Simster]

Absolutely, yes.

But thart doesnt escape the fact that many of those on the left (although not all, by any stretch) seemed to believe that Corbyn could be seen as credible by the electorate. That would be hilarious, if it were not for what has transpired since.

Still, I guess it's easier to throw mud towards the right if it distracts from failings closer to home.

I think we are all aware it was a Hobson's choice to many, but let's be clear about this - you're only saying this because you are a right leaning centrist. I am a left leaning centrist (so like you I found neither Corbyn or Johnson appealing) but would have said Corbyn was lesser of the two evils.

If Corbyn had got in and he'd done a job as badly as Johnson has done, I'd fully expect "told you so" from Tory voters here.

Put it this way - what has Johnson done that makes you think Corbyn would have done any worse? Say what you like about Corbyn, but he wasn't the one with a string of affairs, a love child he doesn't recognise, or a career made up of multiple roles where he's been sacked for lying. He wasn't the one with zero integrity. His crime appears to be that he believed in higher taxes and dressed like a primary school teacher. I'd take that over Johnson's repugnant disregard for the proles all day long.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I have to say that you are giving Johnson voters more leeway than I would when you describe them as 'hoodwinked'.

Johnson had a long documented history as a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical ****. It now seems to come as a surprise to some that we have a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** as a Prime Minister, even though that was what they voted for.

And I'm not trying to insult anyone or persuade anyone to do anything, just pointing out if someone considered Johnson's history prior to the election, then the current situation would be exactly what they would have expected

I haven’t seen one person express surprise at Johnson’s behaviour. Quite simply we have different choices now. At the time of the last election the alternative was Corbyn and the context was continual attempts by Remain MPs to scupper leaving the EU. As you have pointed out many times we have now left. Also, Labour now have a credible leader. Circumstances change and I now have the option of voting for someone else. Given the circumstances of 2019 I would make the same decision as I did then. That is the nuance being conveniently ignored by some on this thread.

 

[Bozza]

Aren't people supposed to vote for who they agree with? Who else were they supposed to vote for?

People agreed with Corbyn as being credible Prime Minister material? Really?

My point was not that people voted for Corbyn at the General Election, my point was that it should not have got to the point of Johnson v Corbyn. If Labour had been able to sort themselves out and put up someone more credible we may not have Johnson today. Or maybe he would still have won, but with a far smaller majority which may have helped to keep him in check.

We'll never know, because a lot of people thought Corbyn had a chance. Hoodwinked.

Also I struggle to understand a world where Johnson was ever credible, that's the point, this isn't a left/right thing, nothing Johnson had done prior to bring elected suggested any different to what has happened since

Exactly, yes. Corbyn was such car-crash material that it even allowed someone like Johnson to get in. I think we're agreeing here.

 

[Bozza]

I think we are all aware it was a Hobson's choice to many, but let's be clear about this - you're only saying this because you are a right leaning centrist. I am a left leaning centrist (so like you I found neither Corbyn or Johnson appealing) but would have said Corbyn was lesser of the two evils.

If Corbyn had got in and he'd done a job as badly as Johnson has done, I'd fully expect "told you so" from Tory voters here.

Put it this way - what has Johnson done that makes you think Corbyn would have done any worse? Say what you like about Corbyn, but he wasn't the one with a string of affairs, a love child he doesn't recognise, or a career made up of multiple roles where he's been sacked for lying. He wasn't the one with zero integrity. His crime appears to be that he believed in higher taxes and dressed like a primary school teacher. I'd take that over Johnson's repugnant disregard for the proles all day long.

Where have I said I think Corbyn would have done worse?

 

[cheshunt seagull]

I have to say that you are giving Johnson voters more leeway than I would when you describe them as 'hoodwinked'.

Johnson had a long documented history as a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical ****. It now seems to come as a surprise to some that we have a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** as a Prime Minister, even though that was what they voted for.

And I'm not trying to insult anyone or persuade anyone to do anything, just pointing out if someone considered Johnson's history prior to the election, then the current situation would be exactly what they would have expected

I think a lot of people who voted for him thought that the kind of people they didn’t like would be the victims of his repulsive personality and were very happy with that prospect.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

We are were we are. Little point in dwelling on who is to blame.

However it is now up to Tory MPs to send letters into the 1922 committee to remove this disgrace from our highest office

They are the only ones to blame from this point going forward for not kicking him out.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I haven’t seen one person express surprise at Johnson’s behaviour. Quite simply we have different choices now. At the time of the last election the alternative was Corbyn and the context was continual attempts by Remain MPs to scupper leaving the EU. As you have pointed out many times we have now left. Also, Labour now have a credible leader. Circumstances change and I now have the option of voting for someone else. Given the circumstances of 2019 I would make the same decision as I did then. That is the nuance being conveniently ignored by some on this thread.

So you voted for someone you agree is a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** (my words) because he told you he could deliver the Brexit that a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** had sold to you years earlier, even though you knew it would mean having a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** running every aspect of the country for the next 5 years ?

Tough call

 

[Simster]

Where have I said I think Corbyn would have done worse?

You haven't, but it is clearly implied.

Otherwise, why would you take issue with those who blame Johnson voters? That bloke has made a mess of everything as it was obvious to the people doing the blaming that he would do - in a way that Corbyn simply wouldn't

 

[drew]

If people are going to play the "it's your fault we've got Johnson" blame game, I hope they're also going to be targetting those who repeatedly played Corbyn as a credible PM candidate when it was obvious to most he was about an uncredible as you could get.

By being hoodwinked into believing Corbyn had any chance of getting to Number 10, they allowed Johnson the free pass to waltz there pretty much unchallenged.

(Reminder: I did not vote for, nor could I ever vote for Johnson. Neither did I, nor could I, vote for Corbyn)

We could of course blame Cameron. Even after all the false blaming of the financial crisis on Labour and up against the disliked Brown, he still failed to win a majority in 2010 hence his 'deal' about Brexit for the next election to bribe people to vote for him rather than Farage. Had he had a majority in 2010 then I doubt he would have felt the need to agree to a referendum and all the shit that has spawned since then.

Since leaving office we've now seen what a duplicitous character Cameron actually is!

 

[Audax]

Domestically this is the biggest issue if we are to have a vaguely representative government. Obviously a topic for another thread but how this government was able to get an 80 seat majority with less than 50% of the vote and who knows how small a percentage of the actual electorate is a disgrace.

It's far from perfect, but switching from FPTP to an Aussie-style Preferential system would be a step in the right direction. At least with a preferences system, those voters hard-opposed to a Tory government can freely vote for their preferred centre / left party in the knowledge that they can put the others ahead of the Tories and still see their vote count to potentially prevent a Tory MP in their seat.

As it stands with FPTP, you need to see a large % of the electorate choose to vote tactically. Tends to work in by elections (cf recent Lib Dem wins), but not so well in a GE - especially when you have competing tactical voting sites with opposing recommendations (as we did at the last GE). With preferential system, tactical voting becomes a whole lot easier. Don't want a Tory MP? Put them last on your ballot paper. If at least 50.01% of the electorate in your seat do the same, then you don't get a Tory elected. Job done.

How many seats out there had a centre-left majority at the last GE and yet still returned a Tory MP with substantially less than 50% of the vote going to a Tory or a.n.other right party? Guessing the answer is plenty, and while we might still have a Tory government right now it certainly wouldn't be an 80-seat majority.

 

[Bozza]

We are were we are. Little point in dwelling on who is to blame.

I absolutely agree. I just wanted to highlight a different angle for those who were on here playing the blame game.

I never even open politicial threads on here from one week to the next, because I find the whole thing rather dull and predictable.

So, with that I'll duck out again and focus on more exciting things, such as tomorrow night's encounter!

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Yes

Brexit could have gone ok, but instead Johnson chose a version of Brexit outside the Single Market. This caused it to be the disaster it is.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

People agreed with Corbyn as being credible Prime Minister material? Really?

My point was not that people voted for Corbyn at the General Election, my point was that it should not have got to the point of Johnson v Corbyn. If Labour had been able to sort themselves out and put up someone more credible we may not have Johnson today. Or maybe he would still have won, but with a far smaller majority which may have helped to keep him in check.

We'll never know, because a lot of people thought Corbyn had a chance. Hoodwinked.



Exactly, yes. Corbyn was such car-crash material that it even allowed someone like Johnson to get in. I think we're agreeing here.

And herein lies the problem.
As an electorate we believe a credible Prime ministerial candidate should be:

• Upper class
• Self serving
• Dismissive of the needs of the common person

We get the government we deserve because we consistently vote for *****.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

So you voted for someone you agree is a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** (my words) because he told you he could deliver the Brexit that a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** had sold to you years earlier, even though you knew it would mean having a proven lying, duplicitous, unscrupulous, self obsessed, deceitful, unprincipled, corrupt, egotistical **** running every aspect of the country for the next 5 years ?

Tough call

No, as you say, they are your words.

 

[Bozza]

You haven't, but it is clearly implied.

Otherwise, why would you take issue with those who blame Johnson voters? That bloke has made a mess of everything as it was obvious to the people doing the blaming that he would do - in a way that Corbyn simply wouldn't

It's clearly not, regardless of how much you want it to be, alas.

I've stated on here, repeaedly, how bad I think Johnson has been.

And whilst I have no idea how Corbyn would have faired as PM, it's hard to imagine anyone could have been worse than what we've had. So I'm certainly willing to guess that Corbyn would have done a better job. (Sorry for saying that, as I know it's just blown your narrative about me.)

But, again, that's not the point. Corbyn was NEVER going to win a General Election in this country, but by being on the ballot paper it effectively handed Johnson the keys to Number 10.

 

[nwgull]

Yes

The laughing emoji sufficient to do this response justice hasn't been invented, you stupid imbecile.