Boris Johnson

[The Old Crem 3,638]

Nadine is seriously considering running. Will Boris be the first leader in a while to publicly support a  potential successor. Her devotion to him deserves him endorsing her for sure. 

[Sean 6,368]

1 hour ago, The Old Crem said:

Nadine is seriously considering running. Will Boris be the first leader in a while to publicly support a  potential successor. Her devotion to him deserves him endorsing her for sure. 

If he didn't that would be beyond hysterical.

[maryportfuncity 10,690]

4 hours ago, The Old Crem said:

Nadine is seriously considering running. Will Boris be the first leader in a while to publicly support a  potential successor. Her devotion to him deserves him endorsing her for sure. 

 

 

Hmmm, a good question - depends if he's taken his narcissism meds today!

[maryportfuncity 10,690]

Oh aye, and...

 

I see the Kunts have already unleashed a touching little tribute to the events of the last few days. I expect it will give them two hits in a row (following Prince Andrew is a Sweaty Nonce)

 

 

 

 

[Octopus of Odstock 2,217]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but when Boris is no longer prime minister, there will be six former prime ministers alive (or should be), which I'm sure has to be a record.

Quite conceivable it could be seven after the general election, even if that's a few years away.

[msc 18,557]

14 minutes ago, Octopus of Odstock said:

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but when Boris is no longer prime minister, there will be six former prime ministers alive (or should be), which I'm sure has to be a record.

Quite conceivable it could be seven after the general election, even if that's a few years away.

 

Yes, you are right. Five has been the joint record up till now.

 

(More details follow but they can be skipped unless folk are excited by stats)

 

In the 1760s, we had five former Prime Ministers (a combination of the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Bute, George Grenville, Marquess of Rockingham, Pitt the Elder and the Duke of Grafton) but most of them died out during Lord North's long and disastrous reign. We got to 5 again when Pitt the Younger took over due to heavy turnover of office in the years before (Bute, Grafton, North, plus the Earl of Shelburne and the Duke of Portland). But he was PM for about 18 years on his first go. And this, a combination of long reigns (Liverpool), older men (Grenville the younger), assassinations (Spencer Perceval) and people who promptly died the second they got the job (poor old Canning) lowered the number of long surviving PMs. 

 

So next time we got to 5 was Robert Peel's second reign in 1841, with Henry Addington, Viscount Goderich, the Duke of Wellington, Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne around. Only for Addington and Grey to pretty much immediately snuff it, and Peel himself died young when he fell off a horse, as you do. 

 

Then came the period where Gladstone, Disraeli and Salisbury basically hogged the job for 35 years...

 

(Yes, I know, hogged feels unfair talking about 2 of the greatest PMs the country ever had.)

 

But because of all of that, we didn't get 5 living former PMs again until 1924 when Ramsay MacDonald became the first Labour PM. That being the Earl of Rosebery, Arthur Balfour, HH Asquith, David Lloyd George and Stanley Baldwin. 

 

We had 5 living former PMs again in 1964 when Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, with Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Sir Anthony Eden, Harold MacMillan and Alec Douglas-Home alive.

 

Then from 1976-95, we had 5 living PMs under 3 consecutive PMs, with the run of Eden (till 1977), MacMillan (till 1986), Douglas-Home (till 1995), Wilson (till 1995), Heath, Callaghan, and Thatcher. 

 

Finally we had it under Boris Johnson, so in a few weeks we should have Living Prime Minister plus 6 surviving former Prime Ministers, a new longevity record.

 

Unless Gordon Brown or John Major decide to randomly snuff it in the next month to create a new superstition! 

[Windsor 2,235]

2 hours ago, msc said:

 

Yes, you are right. Five has been the joint record up till now.

 

(More details follow but they can be skipped unless folk are excited by stats)

 

In the 1760s, we had five former Prime Ministers (a combination of the Duke of Newcastle, the Earl of Bute, George Grenville, Marquess of Rockingham, Pitt the Elder and the Duke of Grafton) but most of them died out during Lord North's long and disastrous reign. We got to 5 again when Pitt the Younger took over due to heavy turnover of office in the years before (Bute, Grafton, North, plus the Earl of Shelburne and the Duke of Portland). But he was PM for about 18 years on his first go. And this, a combination of long reigns (Liverpool), older men (Grenville the younger), assassinations (Spencer Perceval) and people who promptly died the second they got the job (poor old Canning) lowered the number of long surviving PMs. 

 

So next time we got to 5 was Robert Peel's second reign in 1841, with Henry Addington, Viscount Goderich, the Duke of Wellington, Earl Grey and Lord Melbourne around. Only for Addington and Grey to pretty much immediately snuff it, and Peel himself died young when he fell off a horse, as you do. 

 

Then came the period where Gladstone, Disraeli and Salisbury basically hogged the job for 35 years...

 

(Yes, I know, hogged feels unfair talking about 2 of the greatest PMs the country ever had.)

 

But because of all of that, we didn't get 5 living former PMs again until 1924 when Ramsay MacDonald became the first Labour PM. That being the Earl of Rosebery, Arthur Balfour, HH Asquith, David Lloyd George and Stanley Baldwin. 

 

We had 5 living former PMs again in 1964 when Harold Wilson became Prime Minister, with Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Sir Anthony Eden, Harold MacMillan and Alec Douglas-Home alive.

 

Then from 1976-95, we had 5 living PMs under 3 consecutive PMs, with the run of Eden (till 1977), MacMillan (till 1986), Douglas-Home (till 1995), Wilson (till 1995), Heath, Callaghan, and Thatcher. 

 

Finally we had it under Boris Johnson, so in a few weeks we should have Living Prime Minister plus 6 surviving former Prime Ministers, a new longevity record.

 

Unless Gordon Brown or John Major decide to randomly snuff it in the next month to create a new superstition! 

I’d say the list of living former PMs are good for another decade so it’s a record which will likely be smashed.

[Toast 16,241]

 

Isn’t he rich?

Why’s he still there?

It’s weird he’s still hanging around,

In disrepair

Send out the clown

 

It’s taking the piss

No one approves

He likes it when others ‘go down’,

But now he won’t move

Make him back down

Send out the clown

 

Government’s stopped!

Leadership wars!

Scraping the barrel for Cabinet ministers

Down on all fours

How can we trust him again with our national affairs?

‘Resign’ means ‘Resign’

But he’s still there

 

Thrown out on his arse

By mutineers

So borrow a flamethrower back from Ukraine

To persuade him, my dears

He let us all down

Send out the clown

Oh, hubris, you’re here!

 

Call out his lies

Gone are his spells

Kind of ironic the ones in the sewer

Have found out it smells

Now they’re all clean

 

Digging a ditch

His whole career

Using the power of hatred, corruption, and fear

Send out the clown

Then ‘release the hounds’

So he can’t reappear

[gcreptile 11,091]

Labour calls for vote of no confidence:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/12/labour-to-call-for-confidence-vote-in-boris-johnson

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,226]

3 hours ago, gcreptile said:

Labour calls for vote of no confidence:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/12/labour-to-call-for-confidence-vote-in-boris-johnson

That, in a nutshell sums up that utter pile of dog wank that is the Labour party.

What part of ' the Tories have a huge majority and would never vote themselves into a general election that they may not win' do they not actually get.

They are an utter fucking joke.

[Sean 6,368]

It is just dumb.

[gcreptile 11,091]

10 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

That, in a nutshell sums up that utter pile of dog wank that is the Labour party.

What part of ' the Tories have a huge majority and would never vote themselves into a general election that they may not win' do they not actually get.

They are an utter fucking joke.

Yeah, I dont know what to think of it either. If BoJo hadnt retreated it might have been useful. But the party decided to agree with his delayed resignation plan. They didnt put, say, Raab into the caretaker role, so they wont do so now.

Is it at least politically useful posturing? I'm not entirely convinced of it either.

[Bibliogryphon 9,653]

1 minute ago, gcreptile said:

Yeah, I dont know what to think of it either. If BoJo hadnt retreated it might have been useful. But the party decided to agree with his delayed resignation plan. They didnt put, say, Raab into the caretaker role, so they wont do so now.

Is it at least politically useful posturing? I'm not entirely convinced of it either.

 

It allows them to present the party as being complicit in Johnson's corruption going forward but ultimately it will feel like playing politics unless a few Conservatives abstain because they cannot bring themselves to vote for it. Opportunistic if it were to come off

 

However, I do feel like there is a lack of diversity (of political thought) amongst the declared candidates falling over themselves in a race to the right

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,226]

15 minutes ago, gcreptile said:

Yeah, I dont know what to think of it either. If BoJo hadnt retreated it might have been useful. But the party decided to agree with his delayed resignation plan. They didnt put, say, Raab into the caretaker role, so they wont do so now.

Is it at least politically useful posturing? I'm not entirely convinced of it either.

I don't think it is. 

What would more useful is if they got their act together and presented a strong alternative to the shite we have in power at the mo.

The country is well aware that there will be no election before one is due, it would be a good idea if Labour accepted that and just got on with building a shadow cabinet WITH a manifesto to take to an election when it comes.

Another reason for me to think that they are all useless and tactical voting will do fuck all to make things any better for us. 

 

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,226]

17 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

It allows them to present the party as being complicit in Johnson's corruption going forward but ultimately it will feel like playing politics unless a few Conservatives abstain because they cannot bring themselves to vote for it. Opportunistic if it were to come off

 

However, I do feel like there is a lack of diversity (of political thought) amongst the declared candidates falling over themselves in a race to the right

The only people who were truly complicit in Johnson's free for all would have been the wankers that voted for him to remain in charge in the recent no confidence vote and cabinet that stuck with him till the end.

I will include the two no hopers who resigned too late, imho, to be considered on the side of doing what's right.

As bad as they are, there are good MP's in their party just as there are good ones in Labour, Lib Dem etc etc.

I will not tar them all with shite just because there is a significant number of MP's who are not fit to do the job and represent the people.

 

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,370]

42 minutes ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

That, in a nutshell sums up that utter pile of dog wank that is the Labour party.

What part of ' the Tories have a huge majority and would never vote themselves into a general election that they may not win' do they not actually get.

They are an utter fucking joke.

Dog wank??!!  Thats a new one on me and I thought  I knew all the phrases and words there were to know about wanking!!

[Toast 16,241]

Confirmation that this is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship.

 

Boris Johnson's government is refusing to allow time to debate a vote of no confidence in the prime minister, Labour says.

The party tabled the motion in Parliament earlier, with the aim of challenging Conservative MPs to oust the prime minister as they simultaneously hold a leadership contest.

Labour wanted to hold the vote tomorrow, but the party says the government won't allow it to go ahead.

Downing Street says confidence votes are conventionally held in governments and not individuals, such as prime ministers.

"This is totally unprecedented," a Labour spokesperson says. "Yet again the Tories are changing the rules to protect their own dodgy mates.

"All the Tory leadership candidates should denounce this flagrant abuse of power to protect a discredited prime minister.”

In a statement, a government spokesperson said: “We have given Labour the option to table a straightforward vote of no confidence in the government.

"They have chosen to play politics by tabling a vote of no confidence in the government and the prime minister."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62115347

 

 

[Grim Up North 3,771]

Meanwhile the BBC proves that it's not only Diane Abbott who is piss poor at counting. Errr surely that's five?

 

'Suella Braverman reaches 20 backers

Suella Braverman says she's "got the numbers" to make the leadership race ballot.

The Attorney General shared that she'd made up the 20 MPs needed at a Southend City event held in Parliament this afternoon.

This makes Braverman the fourth candidate thought to have got over the line, with Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt, Liz Truss and Tom Tugendhat understood to have also reached the threshold.'

 

[Toast 16,241]

6 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

Meanwhile the BBC proves that it's not only Diane Abbott who is piss poor at counting. Errr surely that's five?

 

'Suella Braverman reaches 20 backers

Suella Braverman says she's "got the numbers" to make the leadership race ballot.

The Attorney General shared that she'd made up the 20 MPs needed at a Southend City event held in Parliament this afternoon.

This makes Braverman the fourth candidate thought to have got over the line, with Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt, Liz Truss and Tom Tugendhat understood to have also reached the threshold.'

 

 

Surely it won't count if she's made them up?

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,370]

3 hours ago, Sean said:

It is just dumb.

It's not headlined anywhere on the BBC text service.  Its a complete  non event  lol.

[msc 18,557]

On 06/07/2022 at 00:57, Sean said:

We haven't heard from Ken Clarke recently either.

On Newsnight  last night. Seemed well for his age and whisky habit!

[Sean 6,368]

38 minutes ago, msc said:

On Newsnight  last night. Seemed well for his age and whisky habit!

Agreed .He had lost weight.Then again he needed to.

[Sean 6,368]

2 hours ago, Toast said:

Confirmation that this is no longer a democracy, but a dictatorship.

 

Boris Johnson's government is refusing to allow time to debate a vote of no confidence in the prime minister, Labour says.

The party tabled the motion in Parliament earlier, with the aim of challenging Conservative MPs to oust the prime minister as they simultaneously hold a leadership contest.

Labour wanted to hold the vote tomorrow, but the party says the government won't allow it to go ahead.

Downing Street says confidence votes are conventionally held in governments and not individuals, such as prime ministers.

"This is totally unprecedented," a Labour spokesperson says. "Yet again the Tories are changing the rules to protect their own dodgy mates.

"All the Tory leadership candidates should denounce this flagrant abuse of power to protect a discredited prime minister.”

In a statement, a government spokesperson said: “We have given Labour the option to table a straightforward vote of no confidence in the government.

"They have chosen to play politics by tabling a vote of no confidence in the government and the prime minister."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62115347

 

 

It doesn't matter as a no confidence vote as pointless.Zero chance it would ever go through.

[Toast 16,241]

19 minutes ago, Sean said:

It doesn't matter as a no confidence vote as pointless.Zero chance it would ever go through.

 

It does matter as it is an example of the reason why Johnson should not have been allowed to continue as PM.  He is still in control and is capable of doing plenty more damage.

 

In any case it would have been an embarrassment for the Tories who have supposedly ousted him to be seen supporting him again.

[msc 18,557]

13 minutes ago, Toast said:

 

It does matter as it is an example of the reason why Johnson should not have been allowed to continue as PM.  He is still in control and is capable of doing plenty more damage.

 

In any case it would have been an embarrassment for the Tories who have supposedly ousted him to be seen supporting him again.

Yeah, it would make the bastards own it, as a wiseman once said.