Boris Johnson

Not one

fb.watch/jt5w2rUxag/

Question Time tonight- audience weighted in favour of Conservatives. Fiona asks 'who thinks Johnson was telling the truth yesterday, let's have a show of hands'

NOT A SINGLE HAND WENT UP ! NOT ONE!

James O'Brien sums him up

fb.watch/jstMnqmsuw/

Why has it taken so long for so many people to see him for what he really is though. He’s done so much damage in the meantime ?

He doesn’t pull any punches does he? Buried at a crossroads with a stake through his heart! I had to keep checking that it was really Max Hastings.

You are right, it is indeed reassuring, and let’s hope that Johnson will be seen off this time, with his acolytes too, and we can return to a more ethical way of governing.

That Max Hastings video was both reassuring - but also chilling. Very, very powerful indeed. People crying out for integrity.

Very interesting Wyllow.
“Pathocracy” perfectly describes Johnson’s close associates during the last few years.

Thanks Wyllow, that’s an interesting, convincing piece

I am not a betting person, but

www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/boris-backed-to-lose-seat-at-next-election-345689/

You can't get much more Conservative than Max Hastings of The Times. His comments to Andrew Marr are utterly damning

fb.watch/jsj_ixphON/

Thank you. An interesting and illuminating read

Thank you Wyllow3. That was interesting.

Wyllow3

This is very well worth a read. There have always been speculations and from time to time the word "narcissist" used.
This outlines, without exaggeration, and with examples, why this label is appropriate.

theconversation.com/the-darkness-of-boris-johnson-a-psychologist-on-the-prime-ministers-unpalatable-personality-traits-177662

Same as Trump. I remember a video years back about Trump which said 'There is something wrong with him' ...

Harman and Costa are both barristers. I don't know about the rest of the committee.

Casdon

Fleurpepper

MaizieD

Casdon

Freya5

I really don't know the Priveledge committe is even bothering. Harman et al have already made their minds up.

For clarity, here is the membership of the Privileges Committee. Out of 7 members, there are 4 Tories and 2 Labour including Harriet Harman, 1 SNP.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/membership/

Aka Tory majority.

And, having followed the proceedings yesterday I can assure Freya that the tory members of the committee were every bit as incisive and probing in their questioning as were any of the others.

I was amazed how incisive they were.

I think they are nominated to the committee because they have interest/experience in parliamentary probity, so good for them all that they carried out their role with integrity.

And Harman herself has a legal background, something quite important I would have thought, in a case like this.

This is very well worth a read. There have always been speculations and from time to time the word "narcissist" used.
This outlines, without exaggeration, and with examples, why this label is appropriate.

theconversation.com/the-darkness-of-boris-johnson-a-psychologist-on-the-prime-ministers-unpalatable-personality-traits-177662

Fleurpepper

MaizieD

Casdon

Freya5

I really don't know the Priveledge committe is even bothering. Harman et al have already made their minds up.

For clarity, here is the membership of the Privileges Committee. Out of 7 members, there are 4 Tories and 2 Labour including Harriet Harman, 1 SNP.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/membership/

Aka Tory majority.

And, having followed the proceedings yesterday I can assure Freya that the tory members of the committee were every bit as incisive and probing in their questioning as were any of the others.

I was amazed how incisive they were.

I think they are nominated to the committee because they have interest/experience in parliamentary probity, so good for them all that they carried out their role with integrity.

I was impressed by the committee; all were polite, stuck to the point (unlike his nibs), and I thought that HH in particular was an example of responsible Parliamentary behaviour and took Johnson's nasty sniping with dignity. Also, I know it is irrelevant, but I thought she looked very smart, and I really liked her necklace . I understand that she is respected on all sides of the house, apart from Johnson and his pathetic coterie, of course.

Mamie

Joseanne

Oh come on, not this old marron again
I know that Boris is a blunderer and an idiot at times, but the word "marron" has no meaning here? Unless it is spelt incorrectly!

That old chestnut? Makes sense to me. 😂

I thought it would to a few ;)

MaizieD

Casdon

Freya5

I really don't know the Priveledge committe is even bothering. Harman et al have already made their minds up.

For clarity, here is the membership of the Privileges Committee. Out of 7 members, there are 4 Tories and 2 Labour including Harriet Harman, 1 SNP.
committees.parliament.uk/committee/289/committee-of-privileges/membership/

Aka Tory majority.

And, having followed the proceedings yesterday I can assure Freya that the tory members of the committee were every bit as incisive and probing in their questioning as were any of the others.

I was amazed how incisive they were.

I watched it and thought once Johnson had finished his (lawyers') prepared statement that his performance was appalling.
I was very impressed by all the committee members especially Bernard Jenkin and Alberto Costa.
Johnson was verbose, muddled, angry and his "explanations" were utterly implausible.
If anyone believed what Johnson said by the end then I can only assume that they must be related to Matilda's aunt.

Boz

I have always thought that the elevation of Nadine Dorries by BJ showed flagrant nepotism.
The Country of Shakespeare and Dickens given a Culture Sec. who writes romantic novels and gazes on Johnson with schoolgirl adoration. Disgraceful.

The Country of Shakespeare and Dickens given a Culture Sec. who writes romantic novels and gazes on Johnson with schoolgirl adoration.

Quite.

Thing is - she got is so wrong - in terms of facts. She criticised Channel 4 for being "in receipt of public money - which it isn't. And insisted that Channel 5 was successfully privatised - it wasn't.

She also accused Channel 4 of using actors in a documentary about people living in dire circumstances in housing estates. A subsequent investigation proved her wrong. As far as I know, she's never apologised.

Those chosen for the job really should at least have some sound knowledge of the subject. Or bone up on the facts.

I don't want to be too judgmental about her writing - it's an easy target. However, I read part of one and found it formulaic, cliched and predictable. Others of course might enjoy them. Her main theme appears to be that, yes, poverty is miserable, but as long as you've got mothers that are full of love and compassion, it's "do-able" and so they should basically just "get on with it"... allowing for a little moan now and then because they don't have enough money to put food on the table.

I wonder how many nurses/care workers had leaving dos, surely they needed their morale keeping up as much as anybody in No 10 …

🌰

Joseanne

^Oh come on, not this old marron again^
I know that Boris is a blunderer and an idiot at times, but the word "marron" has no meaning here? Unless it is spelt incorrectly!

That old chestnut? Makes sense to me. 😂