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

[usernamed]

Tory meltdown incoming...

The thing that worries me most now about Boris's lies and Partygate is the acceptance by significant numbers of the British people.

The reaction of many on phone-ins and social media is "I'm bored of the story", "I'm over it", "there are far more important things in the news we should be focusing on". It's like they are now tolerant of a serial liar in charge of the nation. Day by day, Boris is dragging the nation's standards down so that what people find acceptable in a leader is basically turning up for work and telling them what they want to hear.

My suspicion is that the nation’s standards are not being dragged down, they’re where they’ve always been. It’s just that while a lot of us (and I include myself in this) think that the current leadership have presided over a substantial deterioration in public standards and that this is important, a majority of the population simply either don’t see this at all, or don’t see it as important.

By many, expressing these views is just seen as being overly puritanical and “not living in the real world”.

Clearly our education does not run to explaining the importance of integrity, it’s role in society, and why that’s so important in leadership. We are becoming more American or Italian about it. “He’s a crook, but he’s our crook.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beorhthelm]

The thing that worries me most now about Boris's lies and Partygate is the acceptance by significant numbers of the British people.

The reaction of many on phone-ins and social media is "I'm bored of the story", "I'm over it", "there are far more important things in the news we should be focusing on". It's like they are now tolerant of a serial liar in charge of the nation. Day by day, Boris is dragging the nation's standards down so that what people find acceptable in a leader is basically turning up for work and telling them what they want to hear.

It's like a parent - who had previously stuck to guidelines - caving in while their kids do what they want, when they want, all the time. In Britain we had political standards that were more rigorous than those of those countries, and that gave us some sort of stable democracy and framework for government and accountability. That seems to be going out the window. Once gone, it is hard to re-establish.

its over staturation of what is a minor story, in terms of impact to their lives. day to day people have bigger issues. remember when the story "cut through" when Ant&Dec made jokes? it was also the point that the story was trivialised, a joke, a meme.

some dont seem to accept the story can go quiet and still be important. come back to it in a week when theres a new revelation, then again later when there's the report. the issue and severity of a breach of law doesnt go away because its not on the 24hr news cycle. the daily drip, drip doesnt make the severity worse, it does reduce publics sensitivity to it though. most voters couldnt give a toss about Johnson, they're not backing an ideology (there isnt one), however there's this attack "look thats who you voted for, this is your fault", that builds a culture around the personality as a defense.

 

[essbee1]

The thing that worries me most now about Boris's lies and Partygate is the acceptance by significant numbers of the British people.

The reaction of many on phone-ins and social media is "I'm bored of the story", "I'm over it", "there are far more important things in the news we should be focusing on". It's like they are now tolerant of a serial liar in charge of the nation. Day by day, Boris is dragging the nation's standards down so that what people find acceptable in a leader is basically turning up for work and telling them what they want to hear.

It's like a parent - who had previously stuck to guidelines - caving in while their kids do what they want, when they want, all the time. In Britain we had political standards that were more rigorous than those of those countries, and that gave us some sort of stable democracy and framework for government and accountability. That seems to be going out the window. Once gone, it is hard to re-establish.

Totally agree. I've emailed and shouted at my local MP and that **** Boris. If there was a national march/demo against the pr*ck, I'd be there. But I feel
largely powerless to get this wan*stain out.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Sauce?

Snooze reports.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Met Police now investigating lockdown law breaches at No 10 and Whitehall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60123850

 

[beorhthelm]

Only our archaic electoral system means the Tories got to deliver their version of Brexit which by any measure of popular support didn't win the argument at all - it substantially lost it.

lets not forget our archaic political system would have avoided all this, if only representives agreed on a alternative that accepted the directly democratic referendum outcome on softer terms.

 

[Gwylan]

My suspicion is that the nation’s standards are not being dragged down, they’re where they’ve always been.

That's just not true. I remember Carrington resigning as Foreign Sec, not because he'd done anything wrong but he had to carry the can for his department. I remember Thatcher sacking Parkinson - he'd done nothing illegal but adultery wasn't acceptable. And, of course, Profumo had to resign after lying to the HoC.

I have little time for Thatcher, who caused great damage to the fabric of UK society, but I would never fault her integrity or honesty. Do you really think that she'd have tolerated Johnson's behaviour for a second? I'm not quite sure when standards slipped so much - I suspect when Cameron came in - but there's been a big change in what's acceptable

 

[Stato]

The pathetic defence coming from the cabinet over the latest revelation is that 'it wasn't really a party if it only went on for ten minutes'. As Kirsty Wark tried to point out to lunatic right wing fringe turned rent-a-loyalist Peter Bone (he stayed solidly mad whilst the tory party moved in his direction) last night: It doesn't matter what you call it, there were more than two people meeting for reasons not to do with work, there was communal singing. Therefore, it was illegal.

To paraphrase the bard: 'A party by any other name would still smell of hypocrisy, self-entitlement and lies.'

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

The evidence says that they did, and that they won the argument despite losing the election. At the last election more people (56%) voted for parties offering the public either a final say on the Brexit deal (i.e. Brexit will happen but we can choose what sort of Brexit), or for parties offering another referendum. Despite statements to the contrary there has never been actual evidence of any majority support for the Tory/Boris version of Brexit in the same way there is actual evidence the majority didn't want it - not support from those who were Remainers, or from many UKIP-ers or other vote Leavers. I've said it elsewhere, I only know two people who publicly stated they voted Leave - one believed the messages we'd stay in the single market and is devastated by what happened, the other believed the messages we'd not lose our freedom of movement and he's similarly upset. That's two of millions who each had a different understanding of what it meant because the messages about what Brexit actually was were different from what happened, however much revisionism goes on, which is why a final say was important to so many, as shown by the votes at the election.

Only our archaic electoral system means the Tories got to deliver their version of Brexit which by any measure of popular support didn't win the argument at all - it substantially lost it. Winning an election in our system doesn't mean most of the country supports you - they clearly don't in this case, hence the anomaly that the majority didn't vote Tory, and similarly that Lib Dems got the same number of extra votes as the Tories while losing a seat as the Tories picked up dozens more. The most recent polls about Brexit have shown dissatisfaction amongst those who voted for Brexit and those who didn't - in years to come that the Tories didn't listen to the electorate which very clearly rejected the Tory version (going on number of votes - the purest measure we can use) will very much be their own stunning own goal. We'll rejoin the EU in all but name in the next three Parliaments I'm certain. It'll be called something else, not membership, and both sides will wrap it up as a success because it's politically expedient for both sides to do so, but to all intents and purposes we'll be back in to a greater extent than we're out.

Good post, and yes I also believe that the freedoms of movement and trade will return in forthcoming parliaments, unfortunately accompanied by the same teeth gnawing and fevered debate we've suffered for the past 10 years.

 

[vegster]

Met Police now investigating lockdown law breaches at No 10 and Whitehall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60123850

Now it's really not looking good. Can't be long now.

 

[clapham_gull]

Met Police now investigating lockdown law breaches at No 10 and Whitehall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60123850

Ello Ello Ello what's going on here then ?

Please put down that party popper Mr Prime Minister, I am trying to investigate a complaint.

 

[MJsGhost]

The pathetic defence coming from the cabinet over the latest revelation is that 'it wasn't really a party if it only went on for ten minutes'. As Kirsty Wark tried to point out to lunatic right wing fringe turned rent-a-loyalist Peter Bone (he stayed solidly mad whilst the tory party moved in his direction) last night: It doesn't matter what you call it, there were more than two people meeting for reasons not to do with work, there was communal singing. Therefore, it was illegal.

To paraphrase the bard: 'A party by any other name would still smell of hypocrisy, self-entitlement and lies.'

Exactly this - the "It wasn't a party" line is a non sequitur and yet more misdirection from the slippery f***ers - trying to give more ammunition to the Tory apologists.

Were social gatherings of this size only illegal at the time if they could be described as a party?

Only last week, they were calling on Starmer to apologise for being photographed drinking a bottle of beer, but apparently 20-30 people gathering in a room to sing happy birthday and eat cake is absolutely fine...?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

its over staturation of what is a minor story, in terms of impact to their lives. day to day people have bigger issues. remember when the story "cut through" when Ant&Dec made jokes? it was also the point that the story was trivialised, a joke, a meme.

some dont seem to accept the story can go quiet and still be important. come back to it in a week when theres a new revelation, then again later when there's the report. the issue and severity of a breach of law doesnt go away because its not on the 24hr news cycle. the daily drip, drip doesnt make the severity worse, it does reduce publics sensitivity to it though. most voters couldnt give a toss about Johnson, they're not backing an ideology (there isnt one), however there's this attack "look thats who you voted for, this is your fault", that builds a culture around the personality as a defense.

 

[Simster]

That's just not true. I remember Carrington resigning as Foreign Sec, not because he'd done anything wrong but he had to carry the can for his department. I remember Thatcher sacking Parkinson - he'd done nothing illegal but adultery wasn't acceptable. And, of course, Profumo had to resign after lying to the HoC.

I have little time for Thatcher, who caused great damage to the fabric of UK society, but I would never fault her integrity or honesty. Do you really think that she'd have tolerated Johnson's behaviour for a second? I'm not quite sure when standards slipped so much - I suspect when Cameron came in - but there's been a big change in what's acceptable

I don't think you're arguing against his point, which is that a rump of people simply don't care and see it all as a big fuss over nothing. All you're doing here is highlighting exactly what he says - that standards in public life have slipped thanks to the behaviour of this appalling PM and arguably the one before him. If you want to dispute his version, I think you need to somehow show that more people are less tolerant of a basic lack of honesty and integrity than they were back in the day.

 

[Audax]

Met Police now investigating lockdown law breaches at No 10 and Whitehall.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60123850

Total guess work here, but: Sue Gray has unearthed enough that the Met can no longer ignore it. This can only be indicative of some bad news ahead for Boris when the report becomes available. Printers will be running hot with letters for the 1922 by the end of the week I expect.

 

[worthingseagull123]

The lockdown rules were imposed by the Government who said (every night on TV) "Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives". If you broke those rules then you have no care for the two outcomes at the end of that slogan.

I never caught COVID or passed it on.

I know no one who has died from COVID or has been seriously ill from COVID.

People who I socialised with did so at their own free will. We knew what risks and decided what was best for us.

Go and find something else to be outraged about.

 

[usernamed]

That's just not true. I remember Carrington resigning as Foreign Sec, not because he'd done anything wrong but he had to carry the can for his department. I remember Thatcher sacking Parkinson - he'd done nothing illegal but adultery wasn't acceptable. And, of course, Profumo had to resign after lying to the HoC.

I have little time for Thatcher, who caused great damage to the fabric of UK society, but I would never fault her integrity or honesty. Do you really think that she'd have tolerated Johnson's behaviour for a second? I'm not quite sure when standards slipped so much - I suspect when Cameron came in - but there's been a big change in what's acceptable

I may be wrong, but I would argue that it wasn’t the population at large insisting on those individuals removal, despite the headlines of the time. I would argue that the establishment of the time found their actions unacceptable and the establishment successfully self-policed itself. It was unacceptable to the establishment for disgraced individuals to continue in positions of power.

I would argue that with laissez faire economics eventually comes laissez faire politics. Those who would (even in Thatcher’s time) have hoofed these individuals out, are now far more minded to let things run their natural course. To my mind, the change is less in the general public, but more in the attitudes of the gatekeepers of our institutions. They would prefer not to get involved unless their hand is absolutely forced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dazzer6666]

Now it's really not looking good. Can't be long now.

This will delay it much longer, sadly. She now won’t be able to publish her report and findings as it will be deemed prejudicial to any police investigation…….so we’ll have to wait.

What are the chances of the police taking an age to investigate, and then finding ‘insufficient evidence to warrant charges’ I wonder…..by which time some other whataboutery will have deflected attention

 

[zefarelly]

Ello Ello Ello what's going on here then ?

Please put down that party popper Mr Prime Minister, I am trying to investigate a complaint.

You forgot the next line

Nothing to see here, move along . . .

 

[clapham_gull]

I never caught COVID or passed it on.