Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: mongers on June 13, 2019, 07:14:49 am

Title: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 13, 2019, 07:14:49 am
Results just in from the Tory party leadership elections and he looks to have an unassailable lead, certainly will cruise through to the final two ballot and very likely to win the membership vote.

So assuming he walks, what can we expect from the intellectual titan as he leads the British people to those unlit uplands?

Your predictions please.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on June 13, 2019, 07:40:38 am
Seems premature / we all know it'll just continue to be a muddle until the wire.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Maladict on June 13, 2019, 07:53:39 am

Your predictions please.

No deal exit. Chaos. Wah wah waaaaaaaaaah!
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on June 13, 2019, 07:59:39 am
:punk:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 13, 2019, 08:13:49 am
If only. I mean, yes that's how this will inevitably end up, but first the second round of voting on Tuesday (why hurry?) Then I guess the third one a week later (why hurry?). Until eventually two remains, so they can be put up for vote by the 100k membership (why hurry?).

Seeing Johnson's lead however, I hope after Tuesday everyone else will give up in exhcange of some cabinet position, or having their cousin's company winning a lucrative No Deal-preparation contract or something. Then the process of Boris replaying May's three years in office could begin.

At least Leadsom is out, though. Ghastly woman.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Maladict on June 13, 2019, 08:51:26 am
If only. I mean, yes that's how this will inevitably end up, but first the second round of voting on Tuesday (why hurry?) Then I guess the third one a week later (why hurry?). Until eventually two remains, so they can be put up for vote by the 100k membership (why hurry?).


No I think all subsequent rounds, until two remain, will be next week. Then a final vote a few weeks later.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 13, 2019, 09:23:42 am
:punk:

I know the hair styles are close enough, but apart from that, why?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 13, 2019, 09:26:18 am
:punk:

I know the hair styles are close enough, but apart from that, why?

He want to see the UK go down the shitter faster than the US is with Trump.

The right-wing feel the need for company as they bring the walls down around us.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on June 13, 2019, 09:30:35 am
:punk:

I know the hair styles are close enough, but apart from that, why?

He thinks it’s funny
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Habbaku on June 13, 2019, 09:31:47 am
When 'the lulz' are more important than governing seriously...
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on June 13, 2019, 09:43:03 am
I guess we will now never know who Mark Harper was  :hmm:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 13, 2019, 09:47:41 am
:punk:

I know the hair styles are close enough, but apart from that, why?

They say Misery loves company
We could start a company
And make Misery
Frustrated, Incorporated...
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 13, 2019, 09:59:28 am
I guess we will now never know who Mark Harper was  :hmm:

 :lol:

Indeed.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on June 13, 2019, 10:05:49 am
Lord Patten, a senior conservative of the old school and the last governor of Hong Kong, had this to say on Johnson :

"In Italy, Corriere della Sera published an interview with the veteran Tory politician Chris Patten, who described the favourite to become Britain’s next prime minister as “Trump’s poodle: a liar who does not pay attention to the detail of reality, tells people what they want to hear and relies on their ignorance”.

Patten said Johnson exemplified the “collapse of rationality, of the relationship between the facts and what we believe” in present-day politics. “What he is offering is impossible.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/mini-trump-across-the-channel-european-media-on-boris-johnson-as-british-pm

The Romans presumably thought things were bound to get better after Caracalla; I suspect that May was our Caracalla.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Syt on June 13, 2019, 10:07:53 am
Except May didn't leave behind splendid baths. :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on June 13, 2019, 10:14:37 am
Except May didn't leave behind splendid baths. :P

She opted for dance moves
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Duque de Bragança on June 13, 2019, 10:20:41 am
Lord Patten, a senior conservative of the old school and the last governor of Hong Kong, had this to say on Johnson :

"In Italy, Corriere della Sera published an interview with the veteran Tory politician Chris Patten, who described the favourite to become Britain’s next prime minister as “Trump’s poodle: a liar who does not pay attention to the detail of reality, tells people what they want to hear and relies on their ignorance”.

Patten said Johnson exemplified the “collapse of rationality, of the relationship between the facts and what we believe” in present-day politics. “What he is offering is impossible.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/mini-trump-across-the-channel-european-media-on-boris-johnson-as-british-pm

The Romans presumably thought things were bound to get better after Caracalla; I suspect that May was our Caracalla.

Caracalla's edict was extremely progressive back then. :)  :nerd:
Of course, it had an unintended effect on the legion manpower, which would cause lots of problems with Barbarian invasions.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 13, 2019, 10:22:37 am
Johnson has a painfully obvious disregard of absolutely everything except his own career. I think much will depend on where that will fall.

For some reason the Tories, MPs and members alike eat up his bullshit. So, if we are lucky, he will absolutely disregard his earlier stance and BS through a superficiously changed Withdrawal Agreement, which would be a wonderful thing at this stage.

If we are not lucky, then he just won't care of what happens afterwards, and after failing to BS himself to superiority with the EU negotiators, he'll just No-Deal out.

I guess an important factor will be which is the path of least resistance from his point of view, and which one will let him stay in power longer.

Sure, he'd get a LOT of grief from his circles for signing the WA but nobody could actually get rid of him until 2022, and nothing would change in the country 'til then. Whereas a No-Deal chaos would mean a lot of work for him and a danger of being outsed due to outrage.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on June 13, 2019, 10:38:02 am
I know the hair styles are close enough,

:rolleyes:

Quote
but apart from that, why?

I've always liked Boris.  I've found myself agreeing with him a lot more often than not.  He'd be the first Tory PM since Major that I could enthusiastically support.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on June 13, 2019, 10:39:01 am
Of course, he is mini-Trump. I am SHOCKED you support him. SHOCKED I SAY!
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on June 13, 2019, 10:41:35 am
I'm not much of a Trump supporter, but go ahead and throbb away.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Iormlund on June 13, 2019, 12:37:28 pm
Of course, he is mini-Trump. I am SHOCKED you support him. SHOCKED I SAY!

A literate Trump, though. When BoJo goes off the rails, he does it while quoting Homer or Kipling.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on June 13, 2019, 12:40:19 pm
I've always liked Boris.  I've found myself agreeing with him a lot more often than not.  He'd be the first Tory PM since Major that I could enthusiastically support.

Well good for you then.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on June 13, 2019, 12:41:50 pm
I know the hair styles are close enough,

:rolleyes:

Quote
but apart from that, why?

I've always liked Boris.  I've found myself agreeing with him a lot more often than not.  He'd be the first Tory PM since Major that I could enthusiastically support.

He's certainly an amusing fellow, which gives him a certain amount of good will.  Still not sure I'd actually support him.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on June 13, 2019, 12:44:02 pm
Doom
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on June 13, 2019, 12:49:50 pm
When 'the lulz' are more important than governing seriously...

To the Trumpeters, it is "whatever makes the liberals cry."   They aren't interested in governing, and generally don't think governing is even possible (and, given their favored candidates, they are correct with respect to themselves).
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on June 13, 2019, 12:55:43 pm
I'm not much of a Trump supporter...

Sure, you're not.  I think everyone here believes that.



Not. Go ahead and keep denying it, but your every other action and word screams the truth:  you ARE a trump supporter.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on June 13, 2019, 01:00:06 pm
My favoured job for Boris is hosting the satirical news show Have I Got News For You. He would be quite good at that, possibly excellent. He is quite amusing after all. Unfortunately he is also an idle mendacious charlatan............which really should rule him out for the top political job.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2019, 01:05:30 pm
I found Boris amusing when he was mayor of London.  In his latest incarnation he has been a total disaster.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on June 13, 2019, 01:07:11 pm
On the one hand he is completely incompetent and unsuited for office, on the other hand you don't want to ruin a great series. The UK has had its two worst PMs ever back to back, seems a waste not to go for three in a row.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on June 13, 2019, 01:14:34 pm
I'm not much of a Trump supporter...

Sure, you're not.  I think everyone here believes that.



Not. Go ahead and keep denying it, but your every other action and word screams the truth:  you ARE a trump supporter.

:hug:  I'm actually okay with you and Berkut and some others thinking I'm a Trump supporter.  I do care what some of the rest think about me, so I feel like I have to respond to things like this from time to time.

There are some Trump policies I support, and others I oppose.  I find pretty much every aspect of his character off-putting.  I'm more than a little embarrassed that he's our president, and I've made it well-known here that I'd much prefer Pence.  But while I'm not a supporter, I'm not sure I'd consider myself in the opposition (or better yet, the RESISTANCE :lol:) either.  It's just that I don't hate the guy with this weird passion that sets me apart from most of you.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Habbaku on June 13, 2019, 01:15:31 pm
Can you articulate why you think Boris would make a good PM?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on June 13, 2019, 01:19:20 pm
No, I'm inarticulate as you know.

Seriously though-- I'm not sure what you're asking me for.  I agree with most of his policy positions that I know about, and I think it's about time they had an actual conservative at the head of the Conservative Party.

Is it the Brexit thing that bugs you?  Am I supposed to be opposed to Brexit?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on June 13, 2019, 01:22:58 pm
The problem with BoJo (but also all the candidates) is that they all seem to be promising to renegotiate the Brexit deal - which is something that the EU says it will not do.  Nobody has a very convincing answer on how they'll make the EU change its mind.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Iormlund on June 13, 2019, 01:33:34 pm
They hold all the cards!
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zanza on June 13, 2019, 02:20:48 pm
I guess it is good if an outspoken Brexiteer has to take responsibility for the damaging policy they enacted over the last years. Of course, Johnson and his supporters will blame EU, May, Labour etc. for the failure of their signature policy, but in the end, the Brexiteers will finally be in charge and will have to solve the mess they created instead of just sniping from the sidelines.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Habbaku on June 13, 2019, 02:38:06 pm
No, I'm inarticulate as you know.

Seriously though-- I'm not sure what you're asking me for.  I agree with most of his policy positions that I know about, and I think it's about time they had an actual conservative at the head of the Conservative Party.

Is it the Brexit thing that bugs you?  Am I supposed to be opposed to Brexit?

If you want to play the martyr, be my guest. I will just note that, at every opportunity to provide reasons you support the guys you do, you demur or speak in extreme vagueness.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on June 13, 2019, 02:41:38 pm
I'm not much of a Trump supporter...

Sure, you're not.  I think everyone here believes that.



Not. Go ahead and keep denying it, but your every other action and word screams the truth:  you ARE a trump supporter.

:hug:  I'm actually okay with you and Berkut and some others thinking I'm a Trump supporter.  I do care what some of the rest think about me, so I feel like I have to respond to things like this from time to time.

There are some Trump policies I support, and others I oppose. 

That is weak. That is true of literally every single President there ever is, ever was, and ever will be - even if it is just a numbers game, IE, he has MORE policies that I support, then you are just saying "He is a Republican, I am a Republican, so I support him".

Which, BTW, is exactly why those of us who laugh at your feigned "not support but totally support" stance - you absolutely support him. He is as horrible a human being as we can imagine, but he is a "Republican" and more importantly he is a "Not Liberal" so he can grab as much pussy as he wants, and you will dutifully march in the oh so reluctant rally for MAGA.

You have no principle or integrity beyond "My party, right or wrong". That is what "There are some policies I support...." means.

You are a Trump supporter, just not a very brave one.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on June 13, 2019, 02:43:15 pm
No, I'm inarticulate as you know.

Seriously though-- I'm not sure what you're asking me for.  I agree with most of his policy positions that I know about, and I think it's about time they had an actual conservative at the head of the Conservative Party.

Is it the Brexit thing that bugs you?  Am I supposed to be opposed to Brexit?

If you want to play the martyr, be my guest. I will just note that, at every opportunity to provide reasons you support the guys you do, you demur or speak in extreme vagueness.

I guess I just don't understand how much detail you need here and why you need it.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zanza on June 13, 2019, 02:44:28 pm
27 out of 313 supported Dominic Raab. I question the sanity of these 27 if they seriously believe that this imbecile is the right person to lead the UK in this time of crisis.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2019, 02:46:15 pm
Bucky McSensible only has 5 MPs according to the Economist.  (Probably out of date info at this point.)
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on June 13, 2019, 02:52:06 pm
No, I'm inarticulate as you know.

Seriously though-- I'm not sure what you're asking me for.  I agree with most of his policy positions that I know about, and I think it's about time they had an actual conservative at the head of the Conservative Party.

Is it the Brexit thing that bugs you?  Am I supposed to be opposed to Brexit?

If you want to play the martyr, be my guest. I will just note that, at every opportunity to provide reasons you support the guys you do, you demur or speak in extreme vagueness.

I guess I just don't understand how much detail you need here and why you need it.

Some reason for us to believe your claim that you are not a Trump supporter, when your actions are consistently identical to a MAGA wearing Trump supporter....except that now and again you throw in a "I am not a Trump supporter...really!!!".

If you don't care if we think that or not, you sure do seem reluctant to just own it. So apparently you do in fact care.

And when someone asks you to reconcile, you retreat to "Well, why do you need to know that?" We don't need to know - we already know. *You* need to convince us we are wrong, which you consistently decline to even attempt beyond assertion.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: alfred russel on June 13, 2019, 02:57:13 pm

That is weak. That is true of literally every single President there ever is, ever was, and ever will be - even if it is just a numbers game, IE, he has MORE policies that I support, then you are just saying "He is a Republican, I am a Republican, so I support him".

Which, BTW, is exactly why those of us who laugh at your feigned "not support but totally support" stance - you absolutely support him. He is as horrible a human being as we can imagine, but he is a "Republican" and more importantly he is a "Not Liberal" so he can grab as much pussy as he wants, and you will dutifully march in the oh so reluctant rally for MAGA.

You have no principle or integrity beyond "My party, right or wrong". That is what "There are some policies I support...." means.

You are a Trump supporter, just not a very brave one.

So far, there has been one meaningful moment when we have been able to support or not support Trump: the election in 2016. Derspeiss said he did not vote for Trump (he voted third party). So far as I know, Derspeiss hasn't announced or decided who he will vote for in 2020.

I don't think he has contributed money or campaigned to Trump, or a candidate running against Trump.

Now perhaps he is lying and he really voted for Trump. Perhaps the derspeiss persona is all a fraud and he doesn't really have a wife and kids, and he is really a gay Cleveland Browns fan trying to discredit the Cincinnati Bengals. Who knows. But if we take him at his word, he isn't much of a Trump supporter, if he is at all.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on June 13, 2019, 03:42:40 pm
I know the hair styles are close enough,

:rolleyes:

Quote
but apart from that, why?

I've always liked Boris.  I've found myself agreeing with him a lot more often than not.  He'd be the first Tory PM since Major that I could enthusiastically support.

He's certainly an amusing fellow, which gives him a certain amount of good will.  Still not sure I'd actually support him.

Holy crap BB what possible reason would there be to support him other than he has a Big C in the name of the party he will lead. Is that good enough for you?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on June 13, 2019, 03:47:11 pm
Holy crap BB what possible reason would there be to support him other than he has a Big C in the name of the party he will lead. Is that good enough for you?

If BoJo wins the leadership, his opponents will be Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn.  That sounds like a rather easy decision.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: alfred russel on June 13, 2019, 03:51:46 pm
I'm with Clegg.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 13, 2019, 04:00:23 pm
Again I ask, why can't they bring Blair back?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on June 13, 2019, 04:00:51 pm

That is weak. That is true of literally every single President there ever is, ever was, and ever will be - even if it is just a numbers game, IE, he has MORE policies that I support, then you are just saying "He is a Republican, I am a Republican, so I support him".

Which, BTW, is exactly why those of us who laugh at your feigned "not support but totally support" stance - you absolutely support him. He is as horrible a human being as we can imagine, but he is a "Republican" and more importantly he is a "Not Liberal" so he can grab as much pussy as he wants, and you will dutifully march in the oh so reluctant rally for MAGA.

You have no principle or integrity beyond "My party, right or wrong". That is what "There are some policies I support...." means.

You are a Trump supporter, just not a very brave one.

So far, there has been one meaningful moment when we have been able to support or not support Trump: the election in 2016. Derspeiss said he did not vote for Trump (he voted third party). So far as I know, Derspeiss hasn't announced or decided who he will vote for in 2020.

I don't think he has contributed money or campaigned to Trump, or a candidate running against Trump.

Now perhaps he is lying and he really voted for Trump. Perhaps the derspeiss persona is all a fraud and he doesn't really have a wife and kids, and he is really a gay Cleveland Browns fan trying to discredit the Cincinnati Bengals. Who knows. But if we take him at his word, he isn't much of a Trump supporter, if he is at all.

So according to this logic, yo would say that someone who was 17 in 2016, not able to vote, but otherwise spends all his time talking about how great Trump is, wears a MAGA hat, runs over liberal in his car at rallies, and shoots brown people at the border while screaming LONG LIVE DER TRUMPENFUHRER!, isn't actually a Trump supporter, since he didn't vote for him, and that is the only thing that matters?

I don't think he has to have lied about voting for Trump to make the claim that he is a Trump supporter stick. I think plenty of comments he has made over the last few years makes it perfectly clear where his support rests. I don't think he voted for Trump, but I think he is perfectly happy he is President rather than any Dem. He is a Trump supporter the same way Mitch or Graham are Trump supporters (and McCain was not). They will carry his water because he is on their team, and their loyalty is to their team, not to their country.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on June 13, 2019, 04:02:21 pm
Holy crap BB what possible reason would there be to support him other than he has a Big C in the name of the party he will lead. Is that good enough for you?

If BoJo wins the leadership, his opponents will be Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn.  That sounds like a rather easy decision.

 :yes:

Vote Lib Dem
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on June 13, 2019, 04:06:45 pm
Holy crap BB what possible reason would there be to support him other than he has a Big C in the name of the party he will lead. Is that good enough for you?

If BoJo wins the leadership, his opponents will be Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn.  That sounds like a rather easy decision.

 :yes:

Vote Lib Dem

I don't know how the hell I would vote in a snap UK election.  It would be a single-issue election, obviously.  LibDems would be running as the "remain" party.  I'm reminded whenever I open the Brexit thread that I voted in favour of Brexit in that poll.  I think there's some merit to the idea, but I think crashing out in a hard Brexit would be madness.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: alfred russel on June 13, 2019, 04:16:16 pm
So according to this logic, yo would say that someone who was 17 in 2016, not able to vote, but otherwise spends all his time talking about how great Trump is, wears a MAGA hat, runs over liberal in his car at rallies, and shoots brown people at the border while screaming LONG LIVE DER TRUMPENFUHRER!, isn't actually a Trump supporter, since he didn't vote for him, and that is the only thing that matters?

I don't think he has to have lied about voting for Trump to make the claim that he is a Trump supporter stick. I think plenty of comments he has made over the last few years makes it perfectly clear where his support rests. I don't think he voted for Trump, but I think he is perfectly happy he is President rather than any Dem. He is a Trump supporter the same way Mitch or Graham are Trump supporters (and McCain was not). They will carry his water because he is on their team, and their loyalty is to their team, not to their country.

Derspeiss wasn't 17 in 2016, did vote in the election, and did not vote for Trump. He also doesn't do the things of the hypothetical 17 year old.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my impression is that he is on team republican, despises team democrat, and is not a fan of trump. I think that if he was forced to decide between Hillary and Trump he would have chosen Trump, but in the absence of such a forced decision supported neither. I think he is generally taking pleasure in the current despair of team democrat, and triumph of parts of the team republican agenda, while being ambivalent about trump.

My guess is that he will vote for Trump in 2020. But I don't know that (i'm not sure he does either).

The term "supporter" is a bit of a stretch for a guy like derspeiss when he voted for someone else and whose major outward sign of "support" is schadenfreude re: the democrats.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 13, 2019, 04:35:40 pm
Again I ask, why can't they bring Blair back?

I like Blair myself...but I get that impression that Blair is to current UK politics, what Gorbachev is to current Russian politics.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 13, 2019, 04:37:12 pm
Derspeiss wasn't 17 in 2016, did vote in the election, and did not vote for Trump. He also doesn't do the things of the hypothetical 17 year old.

He might drive up to the Canadian border once in a while, but probably doesn't find any good brown people to shoot at.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Iormlund on June 13, 2019, 04:45:51 pm
Again I ask, why can't they bring Blair back?

If I understand correctly, Blair's standing was irredeemably tarnished by supporting Bush Jr. on Iraq. For a significant part of the left he is a war criminal.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on June 13, 2019, 04:49:36 pm
Blair is intensely hated on the left, and I'm not sure the right would pick him over one of their own.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on June 13, 2019, 05:21:39 pm
So according to this logic, yo would say that someone who was 17 in 2016, not able to vote, but otherwise spends all his time talking about how great Trump is, wears a MAGA hat, runs over liberal in his car at rallies, and shoots brown people at the border while screaming LONG LIVE DER TRUMPENFUHRER!, isn't actually a Trump supporter, since he didn't vote for him, and that is the only thing that matters?

I don't think he has to have lied about voting for Trump to make the claim that he is a Trump supporter stick. I think plenty of comments he has made over the last few years makes it perfectly clear where his support rests. I don't think he voted for Trump, but I think he is perfectly happy he is President rather than any Dem. He is a Trump supporter the same way Mitch or Graham are Trump supporters (and McCain was not). They will carry his water because he is on their team, and their loyalty is to their team, not to their country.

Derspeiss wasn't 17 in 2016, did vote in the election, and did not vote for Trump. He also doesn't do the things of the hypothetical 17 year old.

So you agree that it his what he has done OUTSIDE of a vote that can also be determinative of support. And hence your claim that ONLY voting is an actual show of support is not actually true. Glad we got that out of the way.

The rest of your post I agree with - it amounts to he hates Dems more than he loves the US, and if Trump makes Dems unhappy, he is all for it. Which is just a nice way of saying exactly what I said - he is a Trump supporter, because Trump does what he thinks is most important - the perception that liberals are unhappy because he is in charge.

Like I said, this is the exact same reason others without actual principle support Trump,like Graham and McConnell. They care more about their team than their country, or more about making the hated other team unhappy than the well being of their country.

IE, a Trump supporter.

A republican who has principles, who cares more about their country than they do about their team, because their "loyalty" to their team is actually based on the belief that their teams policies are better for their country, will also recognize that terrible people doing terrible things in the name of party "policies" are not actually better for their country, and will decide that a honest Dem is actually better for the country than a POS dishonest scumbag who happens to be their party figurehead.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 13, 2019, 05:53:48 pm
Johnson is more Peter Principle in action than mini-Trump.  He was well suited for a mostly ceremonial position that had a high media profile like Mayor of London.  His skill is being amusing and being able the grab headlines, but he isn't a serious person who can bear serious responsibility.  Where the Peter Principle breaks down though is that the appointment to foreign secretary was the promotion that badly exposed his shortcomings and should have finished his ability to rise. Yet somehow that fiasco did not prevent him from further elevation.  He has risen far, far beyond the level of his incompetence, and that incompetence has only fueled his further rise.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on June 13, 2019, 06:26:08 pm
Holy crap BB what possible reason would there be to support him other than he has a Big C in the name of the party he will lead. Is that good enough for you?

If BoJo wins the leadership, his opponents will be Nigel Farage and Jeremy Corbyn.  That sounds like a rather easy decision.

 :yes:

Vote Lib Dem

I don't know how the hell I would vote in a snap UK election.  It would be a single-issue election, obviously.  LibDems would be running as the "remain" party.  I'm reminded whenever I open the Brexit thread that I voted in favour of Brexit in that poll.  I think there's some merit to the idea, but I think crashing out in a hard Brexit would be madness.

There are three options. Hard Brexit. The EU's deal. Or no Brexit. Anything else is some kind of fantasy scenario.

In any case as a Lib Dem supporter I cannot help but notice that you justify voting for Boris Johnson because Farage and Corbyn are worse leaders and statemen. But when it comes to the Lib Dems suddenly the statesmanship matters not at all and it all comes down to issues. Why does my party get a higher standard than all the others? The other parties only have to run the least reprehensible asshole.

I mean bearing in mind that both of our support is moral only :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zoupa on June 13, 2019, 07:57:55 pm
derspiess is just a troll guys. No need to feed it.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: celedhring on June 14, 2019, 03:49:49 am
It's a bit difficult for me to choose a particular UK party, without knowing who's standing for the ROTW moral constituency. If Labor is running a non-corbynite candidate I'd non-vote for them.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: dps on June 14, 2019, 10:20:54 pm
derspiess is just a troll guys. No need to feed it.

If he's just a troll, he has been remarkably consistent for over 15 years about the policy positions he supports.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 14, 2019, 10:25:40 pm
If the definition of a troll is simply a person who mocks or satirizes others' positions, pretty much all of us are trolls.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: dps on June 14, 2019, 10:27:47 pm
If the definition of a troll is simply a person who mocks or satirizes others' positions, pretty much all of us are trolls.

I thought a troll was someone who claims on-line to have beliefs (be they social, political, moral, or otherwise) that they don't actually hold simply to get a reaction from people who are offended by those beliefs.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 14, 2019, 10:42:11 pm
They can actually hold those beliefs, but express them for the reaction.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on June 15, 2019, 01:35:06 am
If the definition of a troll is simply a person who mocks or satirizes others' positions, pretty much all of us are trolls.

I thought a troll was someone who claims on-line to have beliefs (be they social, political, moral, or otherwise) that they don't actually hold simply to get a reaction from people who are offended by those beliefs.

Yes.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on June 15, 2019, 01:36:00 am
They can actually hold those beliefs, but express them for the reaction.

Nah. If you don't want a reaction to your beliefs why express them at all?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on June 15, 2019, 03:36:11 am
Back in the day I'd agree with the not actually holding the. Beliefs part. These days though the word has taken on a different meaning
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on June 15, 2019, 03:42:21 am
Back in the day I'd agree with the not actually holding the. Beliefs part. These days though the word has taken on a different meaning

You're trolling, right?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 15, 2019, 04:01:54 am
They can actually hold those beliefs, but express them for the reaction.

Nah. If you don't want a reaction to your beliefs why express them at all?

Not just any reaction. One that gives you the lulz.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 18, 2019, 11:05:03 am
Tory MPs have just finished voting in the 2nd round ballot.

Result expected within the hour, one or more candidates will be eliminated.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Threviel on June 18, 2019, 11:22:47 am
I’ve come under the illusion that a bloke named Rory is the only non-insane one. Comments?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 18, 2019, 11:34:05 am
I’ve come under the illusion that a bloke named Rory is the only non-insane one. Comments?

non-insane as not directly campaigning with promises of utterly wrecking the country. But in normal times he'd be considered a harmless head-in-the-clouds idiot and never let close to power.

Still would be my choice from this lot, though.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: alfred russel on June 18, 2019, 11:58:11 am
I’ve come under the illusion that a bloke named Rory is the only non-insane one. Comments?

In an insane world, it is the non-insane that are the truly insane.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 18, 2019, 11:59:54 am
From all I've seen, Rory is my favorite...but as a big proponent of May's deal (for lack of a better option), I cannot see he has a chance.  I have little doubt he is intelligent enough to see that too, and I get the impression he is not really running for this round, but more towards getting his name out for the future.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 18, 2019, 12:12:27 pm
Only one knocked out (Raab).

BJ up a little.  Hunt still in 2nd, others move up a little bit.  Rory had probably the biggest move, relatively, doubling his count.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 18, 2019, 12:15:13 pm
Only one knocked out (Raab).

And the other 4 all within a dozen or so votes of each other.  :hmm:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: alfred russel on June 18, 2019, 12:18:53 pm
It is great to see democracy in action.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 18, 2019, 12:20:43 pm
Only one knocked out (Raab).

And the other 4 all within a dozen or so votes of each other.  :hmm:

BJ still has less than half the total votes...so cannot really say he is breaking away (if one presumes that most of all the non-BJ votes have a "anyone but him" mindset).
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Maladict on June 18, 2019, 12:30:19 pm
From all I've seen, Rory is my favorite...but as a big proponent of May's deal (for lack of a better option), I cannot see he has a chance.  I have little doubt he is intelligent enough to see that too, and I get the impression he is not really running for this round, but more towards getting his name out for the future.

That would be the smart thing to do. The next PM will at best get to deliver Brexit and then be removed from power because nobody likes the result (whatever it is).
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 18, 2019, 01:05:39 pm
Only one knocked out (Raab).


Good riddance, if there ever was one.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on June 18, 2019, 01:49:02 pm
Only one knocked out (Raab).


Good riddance, if there ever was one.

:thumbsup:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on June 18, 2019, 02:26:56 pm
Only one knocked out (Raab).

And the other 4 all within a dozen or so votes of each other.  :hmm:

BJ still has less than half the total votes...so cannot really say he is breaking away (if one presumes that most of all the non-BJ votes have a "anyone but him" mindset).

Notice how his votes have barely risen..........another scandal and he could easily get edged out; it has happened to tory front-runners before. Then you could get Rory stewart vs brexiter but safe pair of hands (relatively).
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on June 18, 2019, 02:53:54 pm
Only one knocked out (Raab).

And the other 4 all within a dozen or so votes of each other.  :hmm:

BJ still has less than half the total votes...so cannot really say he is breaking away (if one presumes that most of all the non-BJ votes have a "anyone but him" mindset).

Notice how his votes have barely risen..........another scandal and he could easily get edged out; it has happened to tory front-runners before. Then you could get Rory stewart vs brexiter but safe pair of hands (relatively).

How many more scandals would he need?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Duque de Bragança on June 18, 2019, 02:57:52 pm
So no Mordaunt. :(
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 18, 2019, 03:34:22 pm
So no Mordaunt. :(

The UK isn't ready for a HOTT, single MILF as PM.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zoupa on June 18, 2019, 03:38:00 pm
So no Mordaunt. :(

The UK isn't ready for a HOTT, single MILF as PM.

Hard pass.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 18, 2019, 03:38:44 pm
So no Mordaunt. :(

The UK isn't ready for a HOTT, single MILF as PM.

Hard pass.

Francophones need not apply.  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 18, 2019, 04:15:58 pm
So that's the way 'we're' choosing our next prime minister whilst in a period of national crisis.  :hmm:

I think I'd prefer smoke-filled rooms instead.  :bowler:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Duque de Bragança on June 18, 2019, 04:29:14 pm
So no Mordaunt. :(

The UK isn't ready for a HOTT, single MILF as PM.

Hard pass.

Francophones need not apply.  :P

Alexandre Dumas vehemently disagrees!  :frog:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on June 19, 2019, 02:34:06 am
BJ does seem quite inevitable.
Less than half the total votes doesn't mean anything, the onl
Only one knocked out (Raab).

And the other 4 all within a dozen or so votes of each other.  :hmm:

BJ still has less than half the total votes...so cannot really say he is breaking away (if one presumes that most of all the non-BJ votes have a "anyone but him" mindset).


Less than half the total votes doesn't matter. The number that matters is having more than a third of the total votes. BJ just has to get to the final round when it's thrown to the wider membership, who are something like 97% rich angry old white guys who think it's been all down hill since Victoria died.
The only way to stop him winning is for him to place third in the second round.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on June 19, 2019, 03:28:21 am
I see that rhyming slang dude says that "Every older person should die with dignity and respect" .

https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1140327538775994368?s=20

Well it would free up housing for the younger folk. But, speaking for myself, I'd rather go on living a bit longer.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Syt on June 19, 2019, 03:48:55 am
A member of the youth organization of the Christian Conservatives in Germany once called it "sozialverträgliches Frühableben", i.e. "socially benefitial early death."  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 19, 2019, 04:45:14 am
During last night's debate among the audience questions there was an imam whom the BBC invited, who called the candidates to repent over "islamophobia" in their party, which they sort of did.

Turns out the imam had some nice Tweets in his past, like endorsing the plan of solving the Israel/Palestine issue by relocating Israel to the US, and also this gem:

Quote
Every Political figure on the Zionist’s payroll is scaring the world about Corbyn. They don’t like him. He seems best suited to tackle them!
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on June 19, 2019, 04:55:34 am
This is how the left tends to build connections to dodgy far right minority figures.
Amongst any oppressed group, amongst those fighting for equality you do get those who genuinely want equality.... But then you also get those who are tribalists for their particular group and only say they want equality as it lifts them up.
This isn't exclusive to religious minorities.
These days in particular you see a LOT of working class tribalists. People who if they were rich wouldn't give a toss about the plight of the poor. But because they themselves are poor....
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on June 19, 2019, 06:50:56 am
During last night's debate among the audience questions there was an imam whom the BBC invited, who called the candidates to repent over "islamophobia" in their party, which they sort of did.

Turns out the imam had some nice Tweets in his past, like endorsing the plan of solving the Israel/Palestine issue by relocating Israel to the US, and also this gem:

Quote
Every Political figure on the Zionist’s payroll is scaring the world about Corbyn. They don’t like him. He seems best suited to tackle them!

Well he has now been put on suspension by his job pending an investigation.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 19, 2019, 07:17:52 am
This is how the left tends to build connections to dodgy far right minority figures.
Amongst any oppressed group, amongst those fighting for equality you do get those who genuinely want equality.... But then you also get those who are tribalists for their particular group and only say they want equality as it lifts them up.
This isn't exclusive to religious minorities.
These days in particular you see a LOT of working class tribalists. People who if they were rich wouldn't give a toss about the plight of the poor. But because they themselves are poor....

True, and of course this doesn't invalidate rightful grievances or the need to fight discrimination. It does mean however that being a member of a discriminated group shouldn't by default give your word or opinion extra value.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 19, 2019, 07:27:02 am
The next round of voting due to take place this afternoon, 2-5 pm, I'd guess result again around 6pm.

Perhaps two are eliminated today?  :unsure:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 19, 2019, 07:28:45 am
As horrible as it could be, at least it would be fair to have BoJo take responsibility for Brexit.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 19, 2019, 12:07:53 pm
The least insane guy has been deemed lacking in insanity and has been eliminated in today's round.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 19, 2019, 12:20:50 pm
The least insane guy has been deemed lacking in insanity and has been eliminated in today's round.

He might not be insane, but he should fire his barber.  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Grinning_Colossus on June 19, 2019, 12:23:46 pm
Stewart looks terrifyingly British. I'm surprised he didn't last longer.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 19, 2019, 01:18:29 pm
The least insane guy has been deemed lacking in insanity and has been eliminated in today's round.

That's a good way of putting it.

Todays results for those who've not seen them:

Quote
Four men are left in the race to be next prime minister after Rory Stewart was knocked out.

The international development secretary was eliminated after coming last with 27 votes, 10 fewer than last time.

He said his warnings about a no-deal Brexit "probably proved to be truths people weren't quite ready to hear".

Boris Johnson topped the vote again with 143 votes, 17 more than last time. Jeremy Hunt came second, with 54, narrowly ahead of Michael Gove with 51.

Sajid Javid also made it into the next round with 38 votes, five more than in round two.

A fourth round of voting will take place on Thursday.

Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on June 19, 2019, 02:40:18 pm
Stewart looks terrifyingly British. I'm surprised he didn't last longer.

Yeah, I was gonna say-- proof you can't always just get by on your looks :lol:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 20, 2019, 07:34:05 am
Javid only got 33 votes in this round, so he's out.

 Now Hunt and Gove have to fight it out to see who stands against Johnson in the membership vote.

This afternoon's voting ends at 5.30 with results announced 6.15.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 20, 2019, 07:41:17 am
Will one of the coke-snorting journalist candidates be replaced with a foreign secretary who could not had bothered to learn whether his own wife is Chinese or Japanese? Stay tuned as these giants battle it out!
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 20, 2019, 07:45:26 am
Will one of the coke-snorting journalist candidates be replaced with a foreign secretary who could not had bothered to learn whether his own wife is Chinese or Japanese? Stay tuned as these giants battle it out!

Phil 'The Terminator' Hammond will see to them.  :secret:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Threviel on June 20, 2019, 01:35:52 pm
Jeremy Hunt it is, who is he?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on June 20, 2019, 01:38:15 pm
Jeremy Hunt it is, who is he?

Nobody is really sure  :hmm:

Rumoured to be a competent safe pair of hands......but only be part of the Tory party.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: PJL on June 20, 2019, 02:29:49 pm
Jeremy Hunt it is, who is he?

Nobody is really sure  :hmm:

Rumoured to be a competent safe pair of hands......but only be part of the Tory party.

Or Theresa May mark 2 - she too was considered a safe pair of hands.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 20, 2019, 02:34:32 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-JA1ffd5Ms
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on June 20, 2019, 02:36:28 pm
Jeremy Hunt it is, who is he?

Nobody is really sure  :hmm:

Rumoured to be a competent safe pair of hands......but only be part of the Tory party.

Or Theresa May mark 2 - she too was considered a safe pair of hands.

Or that trying to execute a "Brexit" when no one can agree on what that should look like, and is almost certainly at odds with what Brussels will allow, is an impossible mission.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Iormlund on June 20, 2019, 02:50:18 pm
She made the task much, much harder than it already was when she gave credit to the unicorn tales. But most importantly she should have never triggered Art. 50 without a clear mandate from Parliament.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on June 20, 2019, 02:52:19 pm
She made the task much, much harder than it already was when she gave credit to the unicorn tales. But most importantly she should have never triggered Art. 50 without a clear mandate from Parliament.

Agreed. The goals of Brexit should have been discussed in Britain before they ever went to the EU.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on June 20, 2019, 03:14:13 pm
They were. Britain settled on omnishambles.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on June 21, 2019, 03:12:36 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/police-called-to-loud-altercation-at-boris-johnsons-home
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on June 21, 2019, 03:56:45 pm
Oh god
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on June 21, 2019, 04:11:48 pm
Part of me wonders whether it may not be a politically differently inclined neighbour trying to smear him.
But then Johnsons spokesman doesn't deny the version of events....
He really is going full trump.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on June 21, 2019, 04:21:36 pm
Quote
Johnson left his wife, Marina Wheeler, last year and began a relationship with Symonds, who has been credited with revitalising his appearance and approach to politics. She was part of his team when he publicly launched his campaign for the Tory leadership earlier this month.

I kind of miss the days when this alone would end someone's career.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on June 21, 2019, 04:22:57 pm
Quote
Johnson left his wife, Marina Wheeler, last year and began a relationship with Symonds, who has been credited with revitalising his appearance and approach to politics. She was part of his team when he publicly launched his campaign for the Tory leadership earlier this month.

I kind of miss the days when this alone would end someone's career.

Why?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on June 21, 2019, 04:27:35 pm
Quote
Johnson left his wife, Marina Wheeler, last year and began a relationship with Symonds, who has been credited with revitalising his appearance and approach to politics. She was part of his team when he publicly launched his campaign for the Tory leadership earlier this month.

I kind of miss the days when this alone would end someone's career.

Why?

A 55 year old man leaving his wife in order to shack up with a 31 year old party worker?  You don't think that says something about his character?

But of course obviously no one else feels the same way.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on June 21, 2019, 04:28:49 pm
Would it be better had he stayed with his wife and kept her unhappy?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on June 21, 2019, 04:35:04 pm
I am pretty sure he was saying it would have been better if it ended his career.  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on June 21, 2019, 04:43:29 pm
Would it be better had he stayed with his wife and kept her unhappy?

Breaking up with his wife is fine.
Doing it to immediately jump into bed with a workplace junior...

Then there's the not so secret bastard out there.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on June 21, 2019, 05:26:21 pm
I astonishing that the BBC should choose this, a domestic squabble, as their lead news item, above the US-Iran confrontation.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on June 21, 2019, 05:39:02 pm
Quote
Johnson left his wife, Marina Wheeler, last year and began a relationship with Symonds, who has been credited with revitalising his appearance and approach to politics. She was part of his team when he publicly launched his campaign for the Tory leadership earlier this month.

I kind of miss the days when this alone would end someone's career.

When has an older man paid a social price for shaking up with a younger woman?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on June 21, 2019, 05:42:00 pm
Quote
Johnson left his wife, Marina Wheeler, last year and began a relationship with Symonds, who has been credited with revitalising his appearance and approach to politics. She was part of his team when he publicly launched his campaign for the Tory leadership earlier this month.

I kind of miss the days when this alone would end someone's career.

When has an older man paid a social price for shaking up with a younger woman?

1988. Monkey Business.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on June 21, 2019, 09:49:49 pm
Quote
Johnson left his wife, Marina Wheeler, last year and began a relationship with Symonds, who has been credited with revitalising his appearance and approach to politics. She was part of his team when he publicly launched his campaign for the Tory leadership earlier this month.

I kind of miss the days when this alone would end someone's career.

When has an older man paid a social price for shaking up with a younger woman?

Citizen Kane.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on June 22, 2019, 10:31:15 am
It's not BlowJob's private life that troubles me.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 04, 2019, 07:18:23 pm
Ballot papers have now arrived with the 'voters', many have already decided and returned them.

Boris it is, all over bar the shouting.  :bowler:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on July 05, 2019, 01:19:21 am
1066 And All That

Chapter 63 : England ruled by a Johnson
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Legbiter on July 05, 2019, 05:04:14 am
It's not BlowJob's private life that troubles me.

Yeah, it's more that he's like Alcibiades convincing the Athenians that the Sicilian Expedition will be a cakewalk...
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on July 05, 2019, 01:20:37 pm
1066 And All That

Chapter 63 : England ruled by a Johnson

Worse than being ruled by a John?  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 05, 2019, 03:30:17 pm
Crazy conspiracy thought de jure : BJs disastrous private life is being purposefully played up to make him seem even more Trumpesque and whip the stupider segments of the UK into a we love BJ frenzy
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Syt on July 05, 2019, 04:07:32 pm
So, if BoJo becomes PM, how long till he has to resign in disgrace?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 05, 2019, 04:13:31 pm
Crazy conspiracy thought de jure : BJs disastrous private life is being purposefully played up to make him seem even more Trumpesque and whip the stupider segments of the UK into a we love BJ frenzy

That would be silly but hardly a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zoupa on July 05, 2019, 10:33:00 pm
So, if BoJo becomes PM, how long till he has to resign in disgrace?

A year, more or less. Once the UK crashes out + 6 months for good measure.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 06, 2019, 06:20:47 am
Crazy conspiracy thought de jure : BJs disastrous private life is being purposefully played up to make him seem even more Trumpesque and whip the stupider segments of the UK into a we love BJ frenzy

That would be silly but hardly a conspiracy.
I suspect a double layered conspiracy to try and middy the waters whenever such nonsense pops up.
No idea how wide spread it is though.just something I glimpsed on kgbook
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 10, 2019, 12:04:44 pm
The 'leadership' debate last night between Hunt and Johnson was rather underwhelming, but no surprise Johnson laid the bullshit on with a trowel  <_<
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 10, 2019, 02:50:30 pm
The 'leadership' debate last night between Hunt and Johnson was rather underwhelming, but no surprise Johnson laid the bullshit on with a trowel  <_<

How does he measure up against Trump in the field of bullshit?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on July 10, 2019, 03:08:21 pm
He's wittier about it.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 10, 2019, 06:38:01 pm
He's wittier about it.

That could also be said of an actual bull.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on July 11, 2019, 09:59:29 am
Correct.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Grey Fox on July 11, 2019, 10:22:09 am
So, if BoJo becomes PM, how long till he has to resign in disgrace?

14 years.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on July 11, 2019, 11:31:30 am
:w00t:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zanza on July 11, 2019, 03:02:43 pm
:w00t:
Honest question: what do you like about Johnson? He does not seem to embody conservative values.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on July 11, 2019, 04:20:52 pm
:w00t:
Honest question: what do you like about Johnson? He does not seem to embody conservative values.

Good question.

I was thinking about British conservativism earlier today. It is confined to the likes of Ken Clarke, Hammond, Rory Stewart, David Gauke and so on nowadays......but the conservative party seems to regard these people as little better than marxists. A curious business  :hmm:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on July 11, 2019, 04:36:37 pm
:w00t:
Honest question: what do you like about Johnson? He does not seem to embody conservative values.

:huh: He's a total douche.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Barrister on July 11, 2019, 04:48:52 pm
:w00t:
Honest question: what do you like about Johnson? He does not seem to embody conservative values.

Okay, so you didn't ask me, but here's an interview with BoJo published today by politico.eu:

Quote
Beer, Boris and Brexit
Liquid lunch with the man set to be Britain’s next prime minister.

By   JACK BLANCHARD   7/11/19, 1:32 PM CET Updated 7/11/19, 1:39 PM CET

Boris Johnson tastes a pint of beer at Wetherspoons Metropolitan Bar in London | Henry Nicholls/WPA Pool Photo via Getty Images)


LONDON — It’s shortly after midday and Playbook is in the pub with Boris Johnson, just as news breaks that Kim Darroch has resigned. To his credit the man who, barring a miracle, will shortly be confirmed as Britain’s next prime minister still has a pint at the ready. He waggles a finger at one of his aides to get me a drink. “I’m not having a pint if Blanchard’s not having one,” Johnson says good-naturedly.

The pub is the Metropolitan Bar by Baker Street station, and Boris is here as part of his campaign tour to meet Wetherspoons boss Tim Martin — a fellow veteran of the Vote Leave campaign. When did Johnson last have a pint at lunchtime, I wonder? “More recently than you’d think,” he chortles into his glass. “Don’t put that in.” He drinks half and leaves the rest.


Booze meets news: The interview was meant to be focused on beer and Brexit. But just as we’re sitting down, the dramatic news breaks that Kim Darroch has resigned as British ambassador to Washington. Johnson gives a hurried statement to the BBC team recording the visit, praising Darroch’s record and condemning the leaker who brought him down. It’s a fresh crisis for his campaign team, and as the afternoon pans out he will be blamed by his opponents for failing to back Darroch to the hilt in the previous night’s TV debate. But Boris is unfazed, and in no mood to back down. He defends his approach to the crisis when we discuss it at length, and even voices support for Donald Trump’s aggressive tweets. More of that in a moment.

First things first: First we talk pubs, obviously. Along with Nigel Farage, Johnson frequently tops polls of politicians people would most like to go for a pint with. Given his celebrity status — not to mention the enormous security detail standing by the door — can he actually still go to a pub if he wants to? “Oh yes,” Boris says, clunking down his pint. “There are times when you can basically get away and do your own thing.” Does he have a favorite pub in London? Boris doesn’t exactly strike me as a Wetherspoons kind of guy. “That’s a bloody good question. The pub in London where I’ve spent the happiest, longest …” Johnson trails off wistfully. “There’s a wonderful pub right next to the Spectator. I’m going to get its bloody name wrong — it’s something like the Duchess of York or the Duke of York. It might be the Duke of York. (It might also be the Two Chairmen or the Westminster Arms.) “We used to go round and have lock-ins there when I was editor of the Spectator. Because that was a job which was eminently compatible with drinking a pint at lunchtime. It was essential.”

Weighting game: Johnson says he’s enjoyed a long and happy relationship with alcohol, and rues the six weeks he gave up drinking last year. His chief complaint while sober was dealing with other drinkers, and “how long it takes people to get to the point of their jokes” after a few glasses. I wonder if it at least helped him shed a few pounds? Not enough, apparently. “I’ve got to lose weight,” he says. “I need to get back on the treadmill … My bike is now a pathetic object propped up against the railings of Portcullis House.” Being prime minister is not going to help, I suggest. “Well, we’re not measuring the curtains or discussing the …” An aide interrupts the well-rehearsed line, handing me a pint of lager in a continental-style glass. Boris is not impressed. “That’s not a pint. Is it? Oh it is. Well, cheers.”

Beer or wine? “I’m a wine man really,” he says. Can he recommend me a good bottle? “Yes I can,” he says instantly, bubbling with enthusiasm. “It’s called … erm …” He stops. “Erm … ahh… Oh god. Wait a mo, wait a mo, wait a mo, wait a mo, wait a mo. It’s absolutely amazing. Bugger bugger bugger. It’s gone completely out of my head. It’s Italian. Wait — I’m going to find it for you.” Johnson pulls out his iPhone and hunts manically on Google. “It’s not Tempranillo. But it’s some word that ends in ‘illo.’ Hang on. Not pillow, brillo. Hang on, hang on. Wait a mo. It is absolutely delicious.”

Fit for a princess: The answer, when it comes, is not focus-group approved. “Someone was trying to … Someone bought me a crate of it, and I had no idea how expensive it was, and I was just, you know, glugging it back.” He stops. “Erm, I should be careful what I say.” “Drinking moderately?” an aide suggests helpfully. “Drinking it moderately,” Boris nods. “And it turned out that it’s literally £180 a bottle. It’s extraordinary stuff. But I mean it was delicious.” The wine in question, he says, is called Tignanello, a favorite of the Duchess of Sussex. “I discovered later that it was the favorite wine of Meghan Markle,” Johnson says excitedly. “I discovered it by Googling. I was so amazed by this wine, I thought — what is this stuff? And it said it was Meghan Markle’s favorite.” The venn diagram of things popular among both Boris Johnson and Meghan Markle must be quite small, I suggest. “Yes,” he chuckles. “I don’t know what conclusions you can draw from that.”

Sin tax error? Johnson has no plans to reduce alcohol duties, however. “I think I’ve made enough tax-cutting pledges in the last few days,” he says, a little wearily. The look on his face makes you wonder if the £3,000 tax cut for high-earners — heavily criticized by Jeremy Hunt in Tuesday night’s leadership debate — has landed quite as he had hoped.

Un-populism: By now, other punters in the pub have clocked who’s in here. One shouts an excited hello as he walks past, another collars Boris after the interview for a jovial chat. But I wonder if the public reaction in this Remain-voting city is always so rosy. I vividly recall watching a crowd of drinkers outside the Red Lion shouting abuse at Johnson as he cycled out of parliament, midway through the 2016 referendum campaign. Johnson is philosophical about the reactions he inspires. “It’s got better,” he insists. “London, interestingly, has got better. You’ve got to remember about political popularity and unpopularity, they’re both — as I think someone like Rudyard Kipling once pointed out — equally specious. Popularity is as unearned and undeserved as unpopularity, in the end. What you are doing is standing up for a certain set of views or ideas, and those will be unpopular with one lot at one moment, and then you’ll win people over.”

Unity candidate: Johnson clearly believes he can still be a popular prime minister, despite the extreme reaction he triggers in, ooh, about 48 percent of the population. He recalls the negative response when he launched his run for London mayor in 2008, and how it switched over the course of the campaign. “People were really quite nasty to me in the street,” he says. “And then that all changed. It goes up and down.” I tell him all the polling shows he is now both extremely popular and extremely unpopular at the same time. He starts to laugh heartily. “That’s, erm, that’s probably true of most relationships,” he says, presumably talking about his own. “That’s how human beings often relate to each other.”

Welcome to Brussels: There are places where Johnson is definitely not wildly popular. Brussels, for example; plenty of other EU27 capitals, too. Yet Johnson has made renegotiating Theresa May’s Brexit deal the central platform of his Brexit plan. Why on earth does he think EU leaders will bend further for him than they did for May — a woman they actually quite like and respect? “For several important reasons,” he says. “First of all, politics has changed since 2016. They know Britain has to come out now, they know we are serious about no deal. They know they have now got 29 Brexit MEPs in the European Parliament — I’m not certain they want to have Ann Widdecombe lecturing them about their deficiencies. They have the incentive of the £39 billion [divorce bill payment].

And there’s more: “They also have a government in London which is willing to think very differently. Don’t forget the backstop was very much a construct that proceeded from the brains of the Treasury and those who fundamentally wanted to keep us in the customs union and in the single market. That was its intellectual origin. I approach this from a very different perspective — a much more open-minded view of how we can come out. I don’t think we need to be lashed to these institutions in the way that Theresa’s government did.”

From Russia with love: I start to ask another question, but Johnson is piqued by the idea he is disliked in Brussels. “I love Brussels!” he interrupts. “And all these people in Brussels who say …” He pauses. “It’s not true. I had great friends in Brussels, I had great relations with people around the table at the European Council.” I point out the various quotes from senior figures angry at his 2016 referendum campaign. “Well, lots of people slag me off — but look at all the deals we did with them,” he says. “To get 153 Russian spies expelled — the French, the Germans, the Italians all came to the table. And that was a big thing to ask. For a country that’s leaving the EU, asking them to incur the wrath of the Kremlin is a big thing to ask, and they did it. And they knew I had been specifically charged with doing it. If they really had something against me … I had to spend hours on the phone to all of them, and we got it done.”

The grand tour: Johnson will not confirm he is planning a tour of European capitals in the first weeks of his premiership — though you’d think some whistle-stop diplomacy must surely be on the cards. “I don’t want to raise expectations about how we do it,” he says. “We will be very humble and very, very firm. Whether that means doing another great tour, I don’t … We will work out our position and if I’m lucky enough to be elected we will offer them a great deal, and we’ll get ready for no deal.” No-deal preparations, he adds, will start in earnest on day one of his premiership.

So what’s his message to EU leaders? “The United Kingdom is passionately pro-European, but we do not seek continued membership of the EU institutions and we want to leave,” he says. “We want to devise a new partnership based on friendship and intensified bilateral relations with Germany, with France. In some ways I think the bilateral relations have been hollowed out because everything is done through Brussels. Let’s rebuild those partnerships, let’s be much more positive about it.”

Now let’s get serious: We get onto the meat of the interview. Why did he not voice more support for Kim Darroch in Tuesday night’s TV debate? “No, I did,” Johnson protests. “I said I believe very strongly that civil servants should not have their views leaked.” But you didn’t say you’d keep him in his job, I tell him. “No, but I think it’s totally, totally wrong to drag the career prospects of a civil servant into a political debate,” Johnson says. But maybe people want to see a leader sticking up for their own side? “I made it very clear that under no circumstances would anybody else take a decision about who is going to represent the U.K. I was absolutely categorical about that. And for the record I am a long-standing admirer of Kim Darroch. And I say furthermore that if Donald Trump can make friends with Kim Jong Un, then he can make friends with Kim Dar-roch.”

Kindred spirits: I move onto Trump’s extraordinary tweets about Theresa May, which Johnson has also failed to condemn. “Well, I haven’t actually studied them,” Johnson says. I am  incredulous — but Johnson insists he does not follow Trump’s utterings on Twitter. “The honest truth is I am not a great Twitter person,” he confides, quietly. Then he suddenly springs into life. “What did he say? Tell me what he said! Come on, what’s the worst thing he said?” Caught off guard, I get my phone out and start to hunt for the offending tweets. He, erm, he said her Brexit deal was a disaster, I venture, stalling for time as I scroll through my phone. Johnson chortles: “Well, I can’t dissent from that. What else?”

The Don: I read out the offending tweets — May’s approach was “foolish,” the outcome a “mess,” her “wacky” U.S. ambassador a “very stupid guy.” I want to know if our next prime minister is going to respond to that kind of attack from the president of a foreign power. “I think most people feel …” Johnson begins to flannel. What do you feel, Boris? “I feel … I don’t want anybody else telling us what to do. Or anybody else criticizing our government, I suppose is my feeling. But if you ask me whether I think the Brexit negotiations have been brilliantly handled, I don’t think so.”

Modern-day diplomacy: Is it appropriate for the president to talk about our prime minister like this? “Look …” You’re not going to stick up for her? “No, erm. I think the president was clearly being undiplomatic. But he has strong views about Brexit and he has strong views about the deal.” Aren’t you taking Trump’s side? “No — I think, probably, from the point of view of those of us who want to get Brexit done and make a great success of it, it would be fair to say this is a debate that’s best conducted within the U.K. … But you know – the president has his style and his approach. We all have our style and our approach. If you consult the record I have said all sorts of things about all sorts of people around the world. But when it comes to the context of what the president has said about the Brexit deal, I find it hard to disagree.” Welcome to the new world order.

https://www.politico.eu/article/beer-boris-and-brexit/

He certainly has a kind of easy-going charm, and definitely wins the "guy I'd like to have a beer with" kind of sentiment.

Personally though, I'm well past voting for the guy I'd like to have a beer with.  Give me the cold technocrat with lots of experience any day.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 11, 2019, 06:12:09 pm
Give me the cold technocrat with lots of experience any day.

Amen, brother BB.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2019, 01:24:29 am
Seriously Speesh, what do you like about the guy?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Duque de Bragança on July 12, 2019, 03:50:04 am


https://www.politico.eu/article/beer-boris-and-brexit/

He certainly has a kind of easy-going charm, and definitely wins the "guy I'd like to have a beer with" kind of sentiment.

Personally though, I'm well past voting for the guy I'd like to have a beer with.  Give me the cold technocrat with lots of experience any day.

Quote
Beer or wine? “I’m a wine man really,” he says. Can he recommend me a good bottle? “Yes I can,” he says instantly, bubbling with enthusiasm. “It’s called … erm …” He stops. “Erm … ahh… Oh god. Wait a mo, wait a mo, wait a mo, wait a mo, wait a mo. It’s absolutely amazing. Bugger bugger bugger. It’s gone completely out of my head. It’s Italian. Wait — I’m going to find it for you.” Johnson pulls out his iPhone and hunts manically on Google. “It’s not Tempranillo. But it’s some word that ends in ‘illo.’ Hang on. Not pillow, brillo. Hang on, hang on. Wait a mo. It is absolutely delicious.”

A beer with him? Make that wine.  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 12, 2019, 05:32:22 am
IDK guys. For me Johnson is so painfully obviously full of shit and no substance, why you'd want to hang out with him is completely beyond me.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on July 12, 2019, 06:09:10 pm
IDK guys. For me Johnson is so painfully obviously full of shit and no substance, why you'd want to hang out with him is completely beyond me.

Indeed.  His bonhomie seems as artificial as his intellectualism.  He's all hat, no cattle.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zoupa on July 13, 2019, 08:09:57 pm
Seriously Speesh, what do you like about the guy?

He makes them libruls mad. That's enough.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2019, 12:05:27 am
He makes them libruls mad. That's enough.

Do me a solid and don't quote me to talk shit about Speesh.  He's a good dude.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on July 14, 2019, 01:00:27 am
:hmm:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zoupa on July 14, 2019, 01:27:50 am
He makes them libruls mad. That's enough.

Do me a solid and don't quote me to talk shit about Speesh.  He's a good dude.

Damn dude. Have a toke and chill.

Anyways, he might be a good guy offline, but he's a troll on this board.  :sleep:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 14, 2019, 01:34:39 am
You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.  I'm asking as a favor not to rope me in.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 14, 2019, 04:44:03 am
I don't think being quoted should be considered an endorsement in any way.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zoupa on July 14, 2019, 11:59:32 am
Indeed...
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 16, 2019, 02:31:51 am
I don't get it: the Guardian was trying to steer up a scandal over a 2007 BoJo article where he accused Islam of holding back the Muslim world for centuries, and what an "outrage" this generated.

Surely the guy is terrible enough without trying to crucify him for opinions that might be offending sensibilities but otherwise quite clearly supported by history and reality?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 16, 2019, 05:30:16 am
I don't get it: the Guardian was trying to steer up a scandal over a 2007 BoJo article where he accused Islam of holding back the Muslim world for centuries, and what an "outrage" this generated.

Surely the guy is terrible enough without trying to crucify him for opinions that might be offending sensibilities but otherwise quite clearly supported by history and reality?

Except they aren't.
The reasons for Europe surpassing the Islamic world have nothing to do with religion
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Duque de Bragança on July 16, 2019, 05:53:05 am
I don't get it: the Guardian was trying to steer up a scandal over a 2007 BoJo article where he accused Islam of holding back the Muslim world for centuries, and what an "outrage" this generated.

Surely the guy is terrible enough without trying to crucify him for opinions that might be offending sensibilities but otherwise quite clearly supported by history and reality?

Except they aren't.
The reasons for Europe surpassing the Islamic world have nothing to do with religion

Yeah, blame Vasco da Gama and Columbus instead.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 16, 2019, 07:36:45 am
I don't get it: the Guardian was trying to steer up a scandal over a 2007 BoJo article where he accused Islam of holding back the Muslim world for centuries, and what an "outrage" this generated.

Surely the guy is terrible enough without trying to crucify him for opinions that might be offending sensibilities but otherwise quite clearly supported by history and reality?

Except they aren't.
The reasons for Europe surpassing the Islamic world have nothing to do with religion

I think it would be quite hard to dissect the secular Arabic societies from the religion, and I think a lot of people there would dissect you for trying. :P

I have always found it a very convincing argument that it cannot entirely be a coincidence that states with a religion that very directly and intimately deals with micro-managing secular affairs ends up stagnating and declining, in contrast to Europe where Christianity didn't benefit progress in itself of course, but being more detached in its dogma from secular affairs, it could defend its positions nearly that well in controlling secular affairs, hence the Englightement and subsequent advances could happen.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 16, 2019, 07:59:57 am
I don't get it: the Guardian was trying to steer up a scandal over a 2007 BoJo article where he accused Islam of holding back the Muslim world for centuries, and what an "outrage" this generated.

Surely the guy is terrible enough without trying to crucify him for opinions that might be offending sensibilities but otherwise quite clearly supported by history and reality?

Except they aren't.
The reasons for Europe surpassing the Islamic world have nothing to do with religion

Islamic fundamentalists and their values were absolutely instrumental in ending the golden age of Arab science. I mean yes the Mongols invaded and that was certainly bad but the entire Muslim world was not taken over by the Mongols and in any case that era had already passed by at that point. And they were empowered by the lack of separation of religion and state in the Islamic world. I don't see on what basis one could claim that would have happened otherwise but I am interested to here more substance to your claim here.

Do you not think conservative politically charged religion being the dominant force in society does not have a regressive impact? I guess I never pictured you are this big proponent of religion.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 16, 2019, 08:12:19 am
Which reminds me, one of the unfortunate side effects of the tribal politics, is that the more radical Islamic religious elements in Western societies -on account of being Enemy #1 status with the Right- get an almost free pass from progressive circles.

Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on July 16, 2019, 08:43:56 am
Which reminds me, one of the unfortunate side effects of the tribal politics, is that the more radical Islamic religious elements in Western societies -on account of being Enemy #1 status with the Right- get an almost free pass from progressive circles.



Well that is certainly the narrative that the right often promotes.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on July 16, 2019, 09:01:33 am
Which reminds me, one of the unfortunate side effects of the tribal politics, is that the more radical Islamic religious elements in Western societies -on account of being Enemy #1 status with the Right- get an almost free pass from progressive circles.



Well that is certainly the narrative that the right often promotes.

Its a narrative that is pretty obvious even to those not on the right.

It's kind of funny. The right uses it as a fig leaf to cover their racism and xenophobia, and the left uses the right using it to pretend it doesn't exist at all.

It's like they really need one another...
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 16, 2019, 09:10:49 am
I have no idea why countries in the Muslim sphere didn't keep pace with Europe.  I also don't know why the Chinese and the Indian spheres failed either.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 16, 2019, 09:29:50 am
I have no idea why countries in the Muslim sphere didn't keep pace with Europe.  I also don't know why the Chinese and the Indian spheres failed either.

Years ago I remember an Economist briefing where they tried to look for the reasons for the Arab Spring and they painted a bleak picture. Not only overpopulation, but a staggering lack of signs of what I'd call healthy/cutlured societies. One thing I remember is the number of books published throughout the Arab world which was basically non-existant compared to Europe.

Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on July 16, 2019, 10:22:54 am
I don't get it: the Guardian was trying to steer up a scandal over a 2007 BoJo article where he accused Islam of holding back the Muslim world for centuries, and what an "outrage" this generated.

Surely the guy is terrible enough without trying to crucify him for opinions that might be offending sensibilities but otherwise quite clearly supported by history and reality?

Except they aren't.
The reasons for Europe surpassing the Islamic world have nothing to do with religion

Islamic fundamentalists and their values were absolutely instrumental in ending the golden age of Arab science. I mean yes the Mongols invaded and that was certainly bad but the entire Muslim world was not taken over by the Mongols and in any case that era had already passed by at that point. And they were empowered by the lack of separation of religion and state in the Islamic world. I don't see on what basis one could claim that would have happened otherwise but I am interested to here more substance to your claim here.

Do you not think conservative politically charged religion being the dominant force in society does not have a regressive impact? I guess I never pictured you are this big proponent of religion.

What I find really intriguing about this is that the same people doing the faux shrug "Gosh we have no idea why the Islamic world did not progress, but surely it could not have been religion!!!!" will be the very first to insist that Christians not be allowed to push Creationism as science, or ensconce the Ten Commandments as foundational principles of law, or any number of other clearly and obviously terrible Christian ideas of jamming religious dogma into the secular world.

They would, rightly, make the very reasonable argument that pushing creationism as science is in fact *detrimental* to science. Demanding that the earth be recognized as 6000 years old isn't just wrong, it would actually be stifling to scientific thought to insist that it be taught as actual science.

Of course holding up myth as fact is detrimental to human advancement, and noting that a large part of the world went into a phase where they did precisely that as a matter of secular, political, scientific, and economic policy...well, if we removed the specific terms from it, and just generically described it without reference to "Islam", these same people would not disagree with the notion that such a world would in fact be unlikely to be able to compete with those that did not do such a thing, at least not to the same extent.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Oexmelin on July 16, 2019, 10:39:37 am
The problem with these brisk narratives, is the very plastic chronology used to make one’s point. When is secularism taking hold in the West, exactly? When is the hold of the West over the rest of the world attributable to that secularism, rather than the industrial revolution, or colonialism? How do we reconcile that with the counter example of China?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on July 16, 2019, 11:21:31 am
The problem with these brisk narratives, is the very plastic chronology used to make one’s point. When is secularism taking hold in the West, exactly? When is the hold of the West over the rest of the world attributable to that secularism, rather than the industrial revolution, or colonialism? How do we reconcile that with the counter example of China?

THere is nothing plastic about it.

Just because there are examples of other societies that failed to compete for other reasons doesn't discount from the argument that an overwhelming primacy placed on religious doctrine as fact it stifling to growth.

YOur argument is like someone saying "The Red Sox didn't make it to the World Series because they had terrible pitching" and someone else saying "HAH! That cannot be true, because the Mets didn't make the World Series either, and they had good pitching!".

Since the original argument is not that the only reason any society doesn't compete is a stifling theocracy, pointing out that non-stifling theocracies may not compete well for other reasons doesn't address it...

And of course, looking at the "hold of the West" is being a bit narrow in any case. Does the lack of noble science prizes attributable to Muslim scientists because of the "hold of the West"? Does the incredible lack of literacy in Islamic countries the result of the "hold of the West"?

Quote
UNICEF notes that out of 24 nations with less than 60% female primary enrollment rates, 17 were Islamic nations; more than half the adult population is illiterate in several Islamic countries, and the proportion reaches 70% among Muslim women.[57] UNESCO estimates that the literacy rate among adult women was about 50% or less in a number of Muslim-majority countries, including Morocco, Yemen, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Niger, Mali, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, and Chad.[58] Egypt had a women literacy rate of 64% in 2010, Iraq of 71% and Indonesia of 90%.[58] While literacy has been improving in Saudi Arabia since the 1970s, the overall female literacy rate in 2005 was 50%, compared to male literacy of 72%.[59]

Would anyone argue that female literacy has no positive effect on culture, advancement, or the ability to compete? Literacy rates in Europe exploded around 1600-1800, as a direct result of the Enlightenment - and this was for both men and women. There was no such explosion of literacy in the Islamic Middle East among women. Indeed, literacy in much of the Islamic world was still below 40% as late as WW2 (It has since exploded, which of course is really a great thing). But even among women, today, literacy in fundamentalist Islamic society is comparatively appalling. Should we actually argue that this does NOT have a negative effect on societies ability to advance, compete, thrive? Or should we argue that islamic societies lack of female literacy (at least historically) was not a function of their religious beliefs about the role of women in the family and society?

You can come up with a bunch of different data points.

But even that isn't REALLY the point. The point I find incredible is this:

If I said, generically, "Fundamentalist religious societies are going to have a much more difficult time competing with non-fundamentalists societies in many realms, but especially in science" it would not be seen as even remotely controversial among anyone not a religious fundamentalist. Indeed, it seems not just obvious, but in fact a core tenet in the basic idea of the superiority of liberal secularism.

But If someone says "Fundamentalist islamic societies had a much more difficult time competing with non-religious fundamentalist societies in many realms, but especially in science" I am some kind of anti-Muslim bigot, and the SPLC will probably put me on some list.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Grey Fox on July 16, 2019, 12:02:47 pm
I don't get it: the Guardian was trying to steer up a scandal over a 2007 BoJo article where he accused Islam of holding back the Muslim world for centuries, and what an "outrage" this generated.

Surely the guy is terrible enough without trying to crucify him for opinions that might be offending sensibilities but otherwise quite clearly supported by history and reality?

Except they aren't.
The reasons for Europe surpassing the Islamic world have nothing to do with religion

Islamic fundamentalists and their values were absolutely instrumental in ending the golden age of Arab science. I mean yes the Mongols invaded and that was certainly bad but the entire Muslim world was not taken over by the Mongols and in any case that era had already passed by at that point. And they were empowered by the lack of separation of religion and state in the Islamic world. I don't see on what basis one could claim that would have happened otherwise but I am interested to here more substance to your claim here.

Do you not think conservative politically charged religion being the dominant force in society does not have a regressive impact? I guess I never pictured you are this big proponent of religion.

What I find really intriguing about this is that the same people doing the faux shrug "Gosh we have no idea why the Islamic world did not progress, but surely it could not have been religion!!!!" will be the very first to insist that Christians not be allowed to push Creationism as science, or ensconce the Ten Commandments as foundational principles of law, or any number of other clearly and obviously terrible Christian ideas of jamming religious dogma into the secular world.

They would, rightly, make the very reasonable argument that pushing creationism as science is in fact *detrimental* to science. Demanding that the earth be recognized as 6000 years old isn't just wrong, it would actually be stifling to scientific thought to insist that it be taught as actual science.

Of course holding up myth as fact is detrimental to human advancement, and noting that a large part of the world went into a phase where they did precisely that as a matter of secular, political, scientific, and economic policy...well, if we removed the specific terms from it, and just generically described it without reference to "Islam", these same people would not disagree with the notion that such a world would in fact be unlikely to be able to compete with those that did not do such a thing, at least not to the same extent.

The Anglo-Saxon world has issues with separating religiousness from ethnicity.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Oexmelin on July 16, 2019, 12:17:38 pm
THere is nothing plastic about it.

Quote
Literacy rates in Europe exploded around 1600-1800, as a direct result of the Enlightenment
 
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 16, 2019, 12:55:13 pm
Perhaps the better question is not what held the Islamic world back, but what caused the European West to surge ahead - of them as well as all other societies on Earth, with their obvious competitors being the Islamic world and China (and India, Indochina, non-European Asia incorporated into the Russian empire, Japan, Korea, etc.).

It's a matter of comparative competition - what matters is not how powerful a nation or region is, but how comparatively powerful. There were a lot of factors, perhaps the most significant being that most of these other areas were dominated for long periods by unitary empires that actively stifled growth out of self-preservation, at just the wrong time - when their European rivals were surging ahead. This was certainly the case for the Ch'ing dynasty in China - as alien Manchus, they had a deep investment in conservatism and attempts to modernize were correspondingly half-hearted.

Tokugawa Japan is a ket example - they had an empire that explicitly stifled progress in the name of social stability; the putative leaders of the nation recognized this policy as fundamentally unworkable when the Americans showed up in battleships, and all the Japanese had to counter them was a handful of obsolete cannon and a bunch of Samurai; they then discarded it (leading to both progress and disaster). Religion wasn't a big factor for them, except negatively ('keep Christianity out' being a major Tokugawa goal - because it was seen as the thin edge of the European dominance wedge).

Key point here is that much of the Islamic world was for centuries dominated by a major empires - mostly Ottomans, but also Mamluks, Safavids, Moguls.

If Europe had been completely dominated throughout the period by (say) the Habsburgs and/or Bourbon dynasties, it may not have progressed as much and as quickly as it did, and the imbalance between Europe, China and the Islamic world would not have been as extreme - though Europe would still have advantages, given by geography (access to the Atlantic). How that would contrast with a China that was agressive and expansionist (with access to the Pacific) or Persia (with access to the Indian Ocean) is hard to say ...     
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2019, 12:59:19 pm
Literacy rates in Europe exploded around 1600-1800, as a direct result of the Enlightenment - and this was for both men and women.

That causation is clearly not right, as the Enlightenment doesn't get started until well into the second century of that period.  A far better case can be made that the spread of Christian fundamentalism (i.e. Protestantism and the Counter-reformation) was a key driver of increasing literacy in the West.  In a similar way that centuries earlier Islam drove increases in literacy in the regions where it took hold.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 16, 2019, 01:04:25 pm
Literacy rates in Europe exploded around 1600-1800, as a direct result of the Enlightenment - and this was for both men and women.

That causation is clearly not right, as the Enlightenment doesn't get started until well into the second century of that period.  A far better case can be made that the spread of Christian fundamentalism (i.e. Protestantism and the Counter-reformation) was a key driver of increasing literacy in the West.  In a similar way that centuries earlier Islam drove increases in literacy in the regions where it took hold.

It is also perhaps worth pointing out that Christian fundamentalism may be one of the reasons why Europe became balkanized into squabbling nations ...
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2019, 01:11:20 pm
I also don't know why the Chinese and the Indian spheres failed either.

Take the modern history of India and Pakistan.
India suffered terrible development problems throughout the 20th century.  If suffered those problems under "enlightened" British rule, and it continued to suffer those problems after independence while being governed by a staunchly secularist political movement.  India has enjoyed strong growth more recently, but much of that growth has occurred under the rule of an openly pro-fundamentalist party.

For the first 50 years of its existence, Pakistan kept pace almost exactly with India in per capita GDP.  So if there is an "Islamic discount" to development, it doesn't show in that specific comparison.

Pakistan has and does have very serious challenges to development in that it is still a significantly tribalized society with feudal rule still dominating the countryside and endemic corruption and crime problems in the cities. I believe this condition is not directly related to Islam and would hold regardless of what religion was commonly practiced. That said, it is impossible to fully disentangle religion from the broader culture in which it is embedded.

I do not question the basic proposition that Islam, like most religions, can have deleterious effects on a nation's economic and scientific development.  it's relative contribution in particular instances, however, is very hard to measure.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2019, 01:17:01 pm
Key point here is that much of the Islamic world was for centuries dominated by a major empires - mostly Ottomans, but also Mamluks, Safavids, Moguls.   

As an example, the Ottomans have been criticized for failing to encourage literacy and publishing across the Empire.  There were good reasons to do that that have nothing to do with Islam. There are obvious connections between mass literacy and newspapers on the one hand, and nationalist agitation, on the other.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 16, 2019, 03:27:27 pm

I do not question the basic proposition that Islam, like most religions, can have deleterious effects on a nation's economic and scientific development.  it's relative contribution in particular instances, however, is very hard to measure.

Well then that was all I was getting at. The statement was that religion had nothing to do with it. Now was it everything? No. But we have ample documentation about how Islam played a role in how intellectual life eventually became stifled. It had something to do with it.

Also I am not sure economic growth is what I was really that measure here. Otherwise I guess Wahhabism is the greatest thing ever and we should all convert. But I think there are other measurements that we could use to describe its impact on Saudi Arabia, and I disagree that it would be that hard measure them.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Oexmelin on July 16, 2019, 03:41:46 pm
  But I think there are other measurements that we could use to describe its impact on Saudi Arabia, and I disagree that it would be that hard measure them.

What would be your measure?

Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on July 16, 2019, 04:21:10 pm
My beef is not that religion should be seen as the primary factor, but just that there is this clearly ideologically motivated desire to pretend like it doesn't matter in some cases.

Like I said, we can, and should, argue about the relative impacts of various ideas on progress. And even what me mean by progress. And the world is a complex place, so there is rarely, if ever, singular causes.

But only Islam, now, gets some kind of demanded pass when it comes to specifically religious ideas that are clearly, well, terrible by any rational, objective measure.

And every time any of them are mentioned, immediately, the response is "Well, that isn't a religious idea! Look at all these other people who think that!" or "Well, in that case, it was actually some other reason other than religion that drove keeping women illiterate!" even while we can just look at the data and note that literacy rates by this particular religion at particular points are clearly segregated. You can play games with every single data point if you start with the goal of needing to make sure to find a reason not to find religion as being the driving factor.

But step back and talk about the power of ideas in general, and nobody is going to sit here and say "Oh yeah, I actually don't think mandating creationism has no effect" or "Yeah, <insert regressive religious idea here> in general is perfectly fine and has no effect".

ANd when it comes to specifically Islamic religious ideas, that just gets downright political. Suggesting that islam has any kind of ideas that are specifically religious and specifically damaging is met by immediate emotive hostility.

Tell me more how throwing gay people from buildings isn't really a negative on society.

Or is that not really a religious idea, because there are non-religious people who have killed gays as well?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 16, 2019, 11:41:48 pm
What oppressive religious doctrine held China back?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: jimmy olsen on July 16, 2019, 11:51:16 pm


Tokugawa Japan is a ket example - they had an empire that explicitly stifled progress in the name of social stability; the putative leaders of the nation recognized this policy as fundamentally unworkable when the Americans showed up in battleships, and all the Japanese had to counter them was a handful of obsolete cannon and a bunch of Samurai; they then discarded it (leading to both progress and disaster). Religion wasn't a big factor for them, except negatively ('keep Christianity out' being a major Tokugawa goal - because it was seen as the thin edge of the European dominance wedge).


This is a flawed analysis. Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate underwent significant population and economic growth, which naturally led to an increase in social and economic complexity that put the nation into position to quickly industrialize as soon as the country was opened.

Read this book to find out more
https://www.amazon.com/History-Japan-R-H-Mason/dp/080482097X
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 17, 2019, 12:17:17 am
  But I think there are other measurements that we could use to describe its impact on Saudi Arabia, and I disagree that it would be that hard measure them.

What would be your measure?

Actually it might very well be that economic growth is a good measure. I think I was just a little frazzled by how bad Minsky's examples were.

First: British Colonial rule was not particularly enlightened. In fact they had this Burkean view that the organically developed institutions of the people should be preserved and worked through existing institutions all the time, even institutionalizing certain things like the caste system and blasphemy laws and morality laws and many things that are generally considered quite regressive. To the extent it was enlightened, by things like establishing universities in India which allowed Indians from different regions and groups to get together and explore ideas, kind of undermined the whole imperial system. And that was really an attempt to train midlevel bureaucrats, not really an attempt to create an enlightened India.

Secondly: I don't think India dramatically changes from a fundamentalist religious state to a secular one depending on whether the BJP or Indian National Congress is in charge at any given time.

As far as this:

Quote
Pakistan has and does have very serious challenges to development in that it is still a significantly tribalized society with feudal rule still dominating the countryside and endemic corruption and crime problems in the cities. I believe this condition is not directly related to Islam and would hold regardless of what religion was commonly practiced. That said, it is impossible to fully disentangle religion from the broader culture in which it is embedded.

Well I guess I agree if they had a similarly restrictive religion being a constitutional basis they would probably be in the same place. Sunni Islam is not the only reason a country might have oppressive and restrictive thought crime legislation with the blasphemy laws and persecution of the Ahmadi minority. I am sure those things are not helping their situation.

Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 17, 2019, 12:19:16 am
What oppressive religious doctrine held China back?

Being conquered and made second class citizens by foreign Manchu invaders? Confucianism?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Monoriu on July 17, 2019, 01:34:42 am
What oppressive religious doctrine held China back?

Being conquered and made second class citizens by foreign Manchu invaders? Confucianism?

The Manchus didn't treat the Hans too badly.  Second class citizens, sure.  But lots of high ranking officials were Hans.  There was also an unspoken rule that the top three scorers in the imperial exams would not be Manchus (who already have much better ways to advance, no need to block all Hans). 
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2019, 03:14:17 am
First: British Colonial rule was not particularly enlightened.

That was sarcasm

I would also not consider Saudi Arabia an economic success story - despite sitting on massive wealth they have struggled for decades to diversify the economy, with minimal success.

Quote
Sunni Islam is not the only reason a country might have oppressive and restrictive thought crime legislation with the blasphemy laws and persecution of the Ahmadi minority.

Indeed - for example, Thailand's lese majeste laws. Or China's Great Internet Wall. Or Russian control and intimidation of their press.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Agelastus on July 17, 2019, 05:11:12 am
Minsky, what do you think of Timur Kuran's ideas -

http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/esfahani/Courses/MENA%20Files/Papers/Kuran%20-%20Why%20the%20Middle%20East%20Is%20Economically%20Underdeveloped.pdf

He seems to have written a book with the same basic thesis -

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9273.html

I've seen some reviews that suggest that he seems to have overlooked or misunderstood some aspects of Islamic law concerning commerce etc. (Plus that his vast list of sources only includes about 2 works in Arabic suggesting he could be being influenced by a reliance on secondary literature; a weakness common to many historical works, of course when writing in one language about an area with a different language.)
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on July 17, 2019, 06:09:47 am
Indeed - for example, Thailand's lese majeste laws. Or China's Great Internet Wall. Or Russian control and intimidation of their press.

Not Sunni Islam sure, but Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church have been happily jerking each other off in a very cynical play at dominating their respective realms of Russian society.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 17, 2019, 07:13:39 am
Indeed - for example, Thailand's lese majeste laws. Or China's Great Internet Wall. Or Russian control and intimidation of their press.

Sure. It is not the case that Sunni Islam was the only oppressive system ever fashioned in the history of the world. Only that it was and is an oppressive system in Pakistan and other places.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 17, 2019, 07:56:31 am


Tokugawa Japan is a ket example - they had an empire that explicitly stifled progress in the name of social stability; the putative leaders of the nation recognized this policy as fundamentally unworkable when the Americans showed up in battleships, and all the Japanese had to counter them was a handful of obsolete cannon and a bunch of Samurai; they then discarded it (leading to both progress and disaster). Religion wasn't a big factor for them, except negatively ('keep Christianity out' being a major Tokugawa goal - because it was seen as the thin edge of the European dominance wedge).


This is a flawed analysis. Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate underwent significant population and economic growth, which naturally led to an increase in social and economic complexity that put the nation into position to quickly industrialize as soon as the country was opened.

Read this book to find out more
https://www.amazon.com/History-Japan-R-H-Mason/dp/080482097X

No, both accounts are completely compatible.

Remember what I said above about power being a relative measure? Falling behind other nations doesn't mean no progress, it just means progressing more slowly than the competition.

Just because a nation undergoes "significant population and economic growth" and/or "an increase in social and economic complexity" does not mean it is capable of competing in great-power stakes with other nations. Tokugawa Japan realized this when it was forced to face the outside world, by American battleships it had no answer to.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 17, 2019, 08:10:30 am
What oppressive religious doctrine held China back?

Being conquered and made second class citizens by foreign Manchu invaders? Confucianism?

The Manchus didn't treat the Hans too badly.  Second class citizens, sure.  But lots of high ranking officials were Hans.  There was also an unspoken rule that the top three scorers in the imperial exams would not be Manchus (who already have much better ways to advance, no need to block all Hans).

The decay of the exam system in China is a perfect example of how religion is not necessary to have an ideology that stifles innovation.

When the exam system was first developed, it was centuries ahead of anything in the West - a mostly impartial, merit-based system of choosing officials.

Over time, however, the *content* of the exams became increasingly standardized and ossified - the so-called "eight legged essay" format, in  which exam-takers were forced to repeat stale thoughts on the Confucian classics in an extremely rigid manner, success at which demonstrated the ability to learn by rote rather than to think independently. Since all that mattered was passing the exams, all teaching effort was put into crafting the perfect essay; teaching of knowledge for its own sake was not prioritized.

The Chinese at the time lamented the stifling effect of this system, but since worldly success depended on mastering it, nothing was done to change it.

Some scholars have made exaggerated claims about the deleterious effect of the exam system on Chinese innovation - I think it was as much a symptom as a cause.

Quote
As early as the 17th century, the form's adoption was blamed for the decline of classical poetry and prose during the Ming Dynasty.[citation needed] The critic Wu Qiao wrote that "people exhausted themselves on the eight-legged essay, and poetry was only composed with their spare energy."[citation needed] Writing at the same time, the political theorist and philosopher Huang Zongxi echoed these sentiments.[8][11] Also, the essay did not allow for any personal opinion and was completely impartial.[12] As a result, it led to the gradual narrowing of people's innovative thinking and consequently their minds, thus achieving a constraining effect on Chinese people and the nation.[2] The eight-legged essay has been associated with the "petrification in Chinese literature" and "China's cultural stagnation and economic backwardness."[1][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-legged_essay
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2019, 11:47:47 am
Minsky, what do you think of Timur Kuran's ideas -

http://faculty.las.illinois.edu/esfahani/Courses/MENA%20Files/Papers/Kuran%20-%20Why%20the%20Middle%20East%20Is%20Economically%20Underdeveloped.pdf

He seems to have written a book with the same basic thesis -

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9273.html

I've seen some reviews that suggest that he seems to have overlooked or misunderstood some aspects of Islamic law concerning commerce etc. (Plus that his vast list of sources only includes about 2 works in Arabic suggesting he could be being influenced by a reliance on secondary literature; a weakness common to many historical works, of course when writing in one language about an area with a different language.)

I'm a huge fan of JEP - lots of digestible, layperson friendly articles on interesting subjects.

I can't speak to his characterization of medieval Islamic commercial law, but I don't entirely agree with the argument.  Both the Christian and Islamic traditions have a strong aversion to lending at interest.  Religion can't explain why those scruples were overcome more easily in one part of the world then another.

There is an assumption that corporate organization was a key factor in Western economic development which I think is questionable.  Medieval corporate bodies were communal, protective and generally anti-commercial in mentality.  Early modern corporations up to fairly deep into the 19th century tended to take the form of state-sponsored monopolies and concessions, often as a way for the state to extract revenue or to pay off favored elites.  In early American law, there is a strong strain of hostility to corporations for that reason.  The modern day private autonomous and "competitive" corporation is a late development.  [EDIT AND ASIDE - and perhaps is returning to its earlier troubled roots . . .]

I think the piece correctly identifies or alludes to commercial innovations in the West areas like bookkeeping, private commercial contracts, means of commercial communication, and financial innovations like bills of exchange.  I don't think religious law or institutions played much role here - canon law and Church vs. Islamic law and Islamic institutions.  believe the key driver here is what Malthus alluded to earlier - the high levels of political fragmentation in the West and the challenge of conducting transaction across a dizzying array of legal and political jurisdictions forced innovations to address those difficulties to allow people of different cultures and languages to make private commercial arrangements without assistance from - and often in the face of hostility from - such public authority as existed.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 17, 2019, 12:10:13 pm
What oppressive religious doctrine held China back?

Being conquered and made second class citizens by foreign Manchu invaders? Confucianism?


Are you guessing?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 17, 2019, 05:59:08 pm
What oppressive religious doctrine held China back?

Being conquered and made second class citizens by foreign Manchu invaders? Confucianism?


Are you guessing?

Well I have not done intense research on the subject, but given my general knowledge of Chinese history those might be good theories.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 17, 2019, 06:03:19 pm
Both the Christian and Islamic traditions have a strong aversion to lending at interest.  Religion can't explain why those scruples were overcome more easily in one part of the world then another.

It can't? I mean it might not, but I don't see why it is absolutely certain that it can provide no explanation.

For example: Islam is more legalistic than Christianity. Islam is sort of designed as a political system. So in Christianity there was this arbitrary notion you could charge an amount of interest but not an exploitative amount...what ever that meant...at least according to the Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2019, 06:26:30 pm
According to the medieval Catholic Church, usury meant charging any interest, there wasn't an acceptable or de minimus amount.  Aquinas defines it as such in the Summa:

Quote
Hence it is by its very nature unlawful to take payment for the use of money lent, which payment is known as usury: and just as a man is bound to restore other ill-gotten goods, so is he bound to restore the money which he has taken in usury.

Hence the practice of employing Jews as money lenders, who were not bound by the Christian prohibition.

By the 5th Lateran Council (16th century) the Church was recognizing exceptions but in a way that characterized the charge as something other than interest - basically a similar kind of dodge that occurred and occurs in "Islamic banking"

Of course by the 16th century it was common for Christian bankers like the Medici to lend at interest and had been so going back centuries. 

The explanation is not that Christian doctrine was fundamentally different or more lenient. It was that political control and legal jurisdiction in Christian Europe was less organized and more balkanized such that the rules could be more easily evaded.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 17, 2019, 07:39:04 pm
The explanation is not that Christian doctrine was fundamentally different or more lenient. It was that political control and legal jurisdiction in Christian Europe was less organized and more balkanized such that the rules could be more easily evaded.

If it truly was then wouldn't this prohibition be a factor across all Christian denominations? Yet I don't really hear about this outside medieval Catholicism. If it is so essential to Christianity that it is universal Christian doctrine to the point it is a law then please explain that.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Monoriu on July 17, 2019, 07:58:42 pm
What oppressive religious doctrine held China back?

Being conquered and made second class citizens by foreign Manchu invaders? Confucianism?


Are you guessing?

Well I have not done intense research on the subject, but given my general knowledge of Chinese history those might be good theories.

I have read theories that China failed to industrialise because labour was much cheaper.  There was no incentive to replace cheap labour with machines.  You only need to replace expensive labour with machines. 
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Monoriu on July 17, 2019, 08:13:26 pm
What oppressive religious doctrine held China back?

Being conquered and made second class citizens by foreign Manchu invaders? Confucianism?

The Manchus didn't treat the Hans too badly.  Second class citizens, sure.  But lots of high ranking officials were Hans.  There was also an unspoken rule that the top three scorers in the imperial exams would not be Manchus (who already have much better ways to advance, no need to block all Hans).

The decay of the exam system in China is a perfect example of how religion is not necessary to have an ideology that stifles innovation.

When the exam system was first developed, it was centuries ahead of anything in the West - a mostly impartial, merit-based system of choosing officials.

Over time, however, the *content* of the exams became increasingly standardized and ossified - the so-called "eight legged essay" format, in  which exam-takers were forced to repeat stale thoughts on the Confucian classics in an extremely rigid manner, success at which demonstrated the ability to learn by rote rather than to think independently. Since all that mattered was passing the exams, all teaching effort was put into crafting the perfect essay; teaching of knowledge for its own sake was not prioritized.

The Chinese at the time lamented the stifling effect of this system, but since worldly success depended on mastering it, nothing was done to change it.

Some scholars have made exaggerated claims about the deleterious effect of the exam system on Chinese innovation - I think it was as much a symptom as a cause.

Quote
As early as the 17th century, the form's adoption was blamed for the decline of classical poetry and prose during the Ming Dynasty.[citation needed] The critic Wu Qiao wrote that "people exhausted themselves on the eight-legged essay, and poetry was only composed with their spare energy."[citation needed] Writing at the same time, the political theorist and philosopher Huang Zongxi echoed these sentiments.[8][11] Also, the essay did not allow for any personal opinion and was completely impartial.[12] As a result, it led to the gradual narrowing of people's innovative thinking and consequently their minds, thus achieving a constraining effect on Chinese people and the nation.[2] The eight-legged essay has been associated with the "petrification in Chinese literature" and "China's cultural stagnation and economic backwardness."[1][12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-legged_essay

Well, if the goals were to unite the country and secure the ruling dynasty, then the exam largely achieved its aims before westerners showed up. 
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 17, 2019, 09:28:45 pm
Back on topic with this sobering thought, just 5 days to go before Johnson's coronation as king of all Englanders.  :bowler: <_<
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 17, 2019, 10:44:26 pm
The explanation is not that Christian doctrine was fundamentally different or more lenient. It was that political control and legal jurisdiction in Christian Europe was less organized and more balkanized such that the rules could be more easily evaded.

If it truly was then wouldn't this prohibition be a factor across all Christian denominations? Yet I don't really hear about this outside medieval Catholicism. If it is so essential to Christianity that it is universal Christian doctrine to the point it is a law then please explain that.

What other denominations are you thinking about?  I think the Catholic Church still has a prohibition against Usury.  It doesn't mean much today, but the Church has an extensive legal system, and at one time trained specialized lawyers.  Christianity was very much a legal system.  It sort of fell apart as church weakened and royal power grew.  The first Italian banks were founded during the Western Schism.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 17, 2019, 11:09:48 pm
The explanation is not that Christian doctrine was fundamentally different or more lenient. It was that political control and legal jurisdiction in Christian Europe was less organized and more balkanized such that the rules could be more easily evaded.

If it truly was then wouldn't this prohibition be a factor across all Christian denominations? Yet I don't really hear about this outside medieval Catholicism. If it is so essential to Christianity that it is universal Christian doctrine to the point it is a law then please explain that.

What other denominations are you thinking about?

What other denominations, in the hundreds if not thousands that currently exist, use the medieval Catholic canon law? I mean probably some do. Some weird radical Catholic breakaway cult or something.

Quote
I think the Catholic Church still has a prohibition against Usury.  It doesn't mean much today,

That is true. But to be frank this prohibition was like most things in that era: an ideal. An ideal that never meant much in practicality.

Quote
but the Church has an extensive legal system, and at one time trained specialized lawyers.

True. There is and was canon law.

Quote
Christianity was very much a legal system.

I mean yes there was a legal system derived from it but you can derive a legal code from anything.

Quote
It sort of fell apart as church weakened and royal power grew.  The first Italian banks were founded during the Western Schism.

Ok but did Christianity fall apart? Did it decline in this era? No. Quite the opposite. If anything religion became a much bigger deal. So if this legal system is inherently Christian and something all Christians share as part of being Christians then surely the legal code should have become stronger as religiosity became more intense, not less.

The point you make about royal power is key. The church primarily did this because of the collapse of secular authority, it was filling a social need and a void. Once secular authority was re-established it faded away.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2019, 08:22:07 am
If it truly was then wouldn't this prohibition be a factor across all Christian denominations? Yet I don't really hear about this outside medieval Catholicism. If it is so essential to Christianity that it is universal Christian doctrine to the point it is a law then please explain that.

My understanding is that Luther and Zwingli accepted the existing doctrine; Calvin was more moderate and would permit some interest to be charged on commercial loans if not abusive.
Generally speaking, I don't think mainline Protestantism differed on this issue, but at the same time they left legislation to secular rulers.

Henry VIII did permit lending at interest and set a maximum rate; however, that law was revoked under the staunchly Protestant administration of Edward V when the Duke of Northumberland declared usury to be a vice prohibited by God.  Elizabeth eventually restored the lending law, but this was not so much a change of doctrine as a political and financial expedient.

The principal mechanism of commercial finance in the later medieval and early modern period is discounting bills of exchange, which can be seen as a workaround to prohibitions on interest. Another work around was that forced state loans were viewed as not violating the usury prohibition because it wasn't a voluntary transaction by the lender. Eventually the workaround aspect is dropped and straight lending at interest emerges.  Bills of Exchange existed in the Islamic world (may have originated there) but discounting was not permitted.

Long story short, Christians didn't wake up one day and decide God was OK with interest.  But the extreme pressures of state competition and costs of financing wars led states to issue interest bearing bonds and to provide some encouragement to private finance.  After lending at interest became commonplace, doctrinal views began to shift to reflect the reality on the ground.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 18, 2019, 09:20:06 am

Well, if the goals were to unite the country and secure the ruling dynasty, then the exam largely achieved its aims before westerners showed up.

That's the thesis in a summary: that the overriding goal was social stability and unity - and that things like freedom of thought and expression took a definite second (or third) place. The exams may have started as a way of impartially choosing officials while valuing scholarship, but ended up as a tool for conformity and orthodoxy - with no religious component whatsoever (in this context, "Confucianism" is not a religion, but rather a theory of governance). 

In the West, it isn't like everyone suddenly valued freedom of thought over unity and social stability - far from it! - but rather, that the unity necessary to enforce such conformity and orthodoxy was notable by its absence: instead, what arose was a bunch of nations, each permanently in competition with all the others, and scrambling for every advantage they could find. In such an intensely competitive atmosphere, freedom of thought became more possible; the new technologies of navigation exported European inter-state squabbling all across the world. 

The irony of course is that nations in competition (and armed with increased freedom of thought) resulted in highly accelerated development - eventually spelling all sorts of trouble for everyone else, including the mighty united Manchu empire: united and more or less socially stable - until the European nations came to carve it up into spheres of influence, destroying its unity and stability in the process.   
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 18, 2019, 09:25:11 am
Yeah but foreign invasion regularly did that to China. It is kind of funny how it fits so neatly into their cyclic history. Now a new dynasty has power.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on July 18, 2019, 09:30:04 am
Why is that when it comes to Islamic religious views and how they have influenced policy and behavior, we all seem to have this need to come up with some other reason why some outcome was the result of some non-religious factor? But we are happy to talk about the relative influence of Catholic versus Protestant ideas around usury and how they impact policy and laws, and how those laws an policies then impact actual results in the human condition?

You said earlier that the enlightenment was (to some extent) the result of the Protestant Reformation. We can argue that I suppose (it is certainly an interesting discussion on its own merits), but what I find more interesting is this desire to find a *religious* reason for something that is seen as a positive outcome - but of course the flip side to that coin is that there was a *religious* reason that said Enlightenment (if the argument is correct) did not happen earlier - presumably Catholic suppression of whatever forces the Protestant Reformation unleashed.

I know the flip flip side to my argument is that there are in fact actual Islamophobes who do over-state the horrors and evils of the religion for their own reasons.

But it seems to me that the left has gone full on the other extreme, and there is this reflexive defense of Islamic ideas that in the specific we all recognize as terrible, but we consistently dismiss as having any actual impact on results for the societies that embrace them, both historically and contemporaneously.

Here is what I think:

Ideas matter. They influence behavior, they influence decisions, they influence policy, economics, and societies. They do so in complex, often very difficult to analyse matters, but the *fact* that they do so (even if difficult to measure precisely) is not disputable. Religious ideas specifically do so as well, and what is more, have historically done so in profound ways.

There is nothing magical about religious ideas that make them necessarily bad or good per se. Many religious ideas are excellent, and have excellent influences. Many of them are terrible, and have terrible influences. What does set them apart from non-religious ideas is that they can be incredibly pervasive in that by definition they are often very difficult to change by reason, since their proponents tend to hold them as being outside of reason and rational appeals. This means that once in place, they tend to not change quickly. They are not impervious to reality of course, but it often takes reality making them untenable for them to change, and then they often change grudgingly, slowly, or along with great strife. (As an aside, I will note that religious ideas are not unique in this either - many non-religious ideas have and can be taken with religious fervor and become just as impervious to reason, and often have resulting horrific consequences).

The content and details matter. You cannot generalize that religious ideas are bad or good, because it depends on the idea and the time and context.

That is all the general stuff.

Specifically, in regards to Islam, I think right now, of all the major world religions, it has some of the worst ideas when it comes to advancing human well being, today. Not all Islam, and not all Islamic ideas, of course, but enough of them that it is and should be seen as a specific challenge to liberal ideals, today. And I think the left, in particular, and likely as a response to bigotry and intolerance (and a healthy dose of naval gazing wokeness) has taken on this bizarre attitude that any questioning or noting that Islam today, because of many of their specific ideas that are pretty obviously terrible, can only come from the standpoint of right wing bigotry.

Finally, this results in actually strengthening the very forces it is supposed to be opposing. The unwillingness of political figures on the left to honestly talk about these problems means there is a significant number of people who care about this who are presented with the choice of one side that insists that there is no problem when there is clearly a problem, and another side that exaggerates the problem, but at least is willing to admit it exists. This is, if nothing else, a tactical error on the part of the left.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 18, 2019, 10:20:19 am
I don't get it: the Guardian was trying to steer up a scandal over a 2007 BoJo article where he accused Islam of holding back the Muslim world for centuries, and what an "outrage" this generated.

Surely the guy is terrible enough without trying to crucify him for opinions that might be offending sensibilities but otherwise quite clearly supported by history and reality?

Except they aren't.
The reasons for Europe surpassing the Islamic world have nothing to do with religion

Islamic fundamentalists and their values were absolutely instrumental in ending the golden age of Arab science. I mean yes the Mongols invaded and that was certainly bad but the entire Muslim world was not taken over by the Mongols and in any case that era had already passed by at that point. And they were empowered by the lack of separation of religion and state in the Islamic world. I don't see on what basis one could claim that would have happened otherwise but I am interested to here more substance to your claim here.

Do you not think conservative politically charged religion being the dominant force in society does not have a regressive impact? I guess I never pictured you are this big proponent of religion.

Except reformed Islam is a pretty modern development, particularly as a powerful force. Its important not to ascribe modern wahabist thinking to Ottoman rulers.

Long beyond the Islamic Golden Age the Islamic world remained ahead of Europe.
The reasons for this ceasing to be the case are less to do with the Islamic world falling and more to do with Europe rising.

The reasons for the various Islamic powers to fall behind can't all be neatly summed as "because they're muslim", as they were pretty diverse places. You're looking at a huge difference between the unsustainable economy based on conquest, loss of trading monopolies, family feuds and stagnation of the Ottomans to the collapse in central authority of the Mughals.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 18, 2019, 10:23:30 am
This documentary about Boris Johnson is well worth a viewing:

'The Invention of Boris Johnson'
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-invention-of-boris-johnson/on-demand/70323-001https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-invention-of-boris-johnson/on-demand/70323-001 (https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-invention-of-boris-johnson/on-demand/70323-001https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-invention-of-boris-johnson/on-demand/70323-001)

Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Duque de Bragança on July 18, 2019, 11:03:03 am
If it truly was then wouldn't this prohibition be a factor across all Christian denominations? Yet I don't really hear about this outside medieval Catholicism. If it is so essential to Christianity that it is universal Christian doctrine to the point it is a law then please explain that.

My understanding is that Luther and Zwingli accepted the existing doctrine; Calvin was more moderate and would permit some interest to be charged on commercial loans if not abusive.
Generally speaking, I don't think mainline Protestantism differed on this issue, but at the same time they left legislation to secular rulers.



Luther famously disagreed over interest rates with Johann Eck, a staunch catholic debater, who proposed a five percent rate, refused by Luther.
I don't know how much Calvin suggested but his "moderation" in this aspect does not seem far from what the Catholic Church suggested.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Eck (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Eck)

Quote
As a political economist he defended the lawfulness of putting out capital at interest.[2] and successfully argued his view at disputations at Augsburg (1514) and Bologna (1515), where he also disputed about predestination. These triumphs were repeated at Vienna in 1516. Through these successes he gained the patronage of the Fuggers, but they scandalized Martin Luther.[3]

I know this is just a wiki link but it is not generally disputed. Besides, it is sourced.

PS: this is the Johann Eck insultingly nicknamed Dreck (Dr. Eck) by Luther who seemed to be a sore loser sometimes.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2019, 11:19:30 am
Why is that when it comes to Islamic religious views and how they have influenced policy and behavior, we all seem to have this need to come up with some other reason why some outcome was the result of some non-religious factor? But we are happy to talk about the relative influence of Catholic versus Protestant ideas around usury and how they impact policy and laws, and how those laws an policies then impact actual results in the human condition?

That's a bit of a strawman - I think we are doing the analysis the same way for both faiths.  My understanding is that both faiths viewed the usury question very similar - the same moral objection on the same basis.  But the surrounding institutional and political structures were different so practice evolved differently in the two spheres.

Quote
You said earlier that the enlightenment was (to some extent) the result of the Protestant Reformation. We can argue that I suppose (it is certainly an interesting discussion on its own merits), but what I find more interesting is this desire to find a *religious* reason for something that is seen as a positive outcome - but of course the flip side to that coin is that there was a *religious* reason that said Enlightenment (if the argument is correct) did not happen earlier - presumably Catholic suppression of whatever forces the Protestant Reformation unleashed.

I don't think there is a direct connection (the Enlightenment is after all a cross-national, cross-denominational phenomenon).  I'm quite sure the Reformers didn't set out to encourage a skeptical attitude towards religion and the elevation of the truths derived from human reason over revelation -- quite the contrary.  The connection is simply that the Reformation and the Catholic response encouraged the growth of literacy, which in turn was a pre-requisite for the Enlightenment to take root.  It also prompted a certain kind of literate production - namely pamphlets and polemics - that also ultimately feeds into the development of a modern literate culture.  Political authorities did try to control or suppress this production but dispersion of political authority in Europe made the task impossible.

Islam is not hostile to literacy, far from it.  Literacy is and was encouraged to be able to read the Koran (although rote memorization by ear was also deemed an acceptable and often necessary substitute). However, the production of critical of polemical tracts on political and religious matters was not encouraged, other than learned works by eminent scholars.  The discouragement is not so much a matter of religious doctrine, as political control.   For example, the Ottomans did not suppress the growth of a free press because they truly believed newspapers were inherently un-Islamic, they did so because newspapers posed a threat to their political control over a polyglot multi-cultural empire.

It's not excuse making to point out the full historical and institutional context.

Quote
Here is what I think:

I agree with your general viewpoint.

Quote
Specifically, in regards to Islam, I think right now, of all the major world religions, it has some of the worst ideas when it comes to advancing human well being, today. Not all Islam, and not all Islamic ideas, of course, but enough of them that it is and should be seen as a specific challenge to liberal ideals, today. And I think the left, in particular, and likely as a response to bigotry and intolerance (and a healthy dose of naval gazing wokeness) has taken on this bizarre attitude that any questioning or noting that Islam today, because of many of their specific ideas that are pretty obviously terrible, can only come from the standpoint of right wing bigotry.

Finally, this results in actually strengthening the very forces it is supposed to be opposing. The unwillingness of political figures on the left to honestly talk about these problems means there is a significant number of people who care about this who are presented with the choice of one side that insists that there is no problem when there is clearly a problem, and another side that exaggerates the problem, but at least is willing to admit it exists. This is, if nothing else, a tactical error on the part of the left.

No doubt there are particular manifestations and factions of Islam that are truly awful and can be fairly characterized the way you do. That can't be seriously questioned.  ISIS for example, is unquestionably an Islamic movement and it would be hard to think of something worse than that.  And at least at this point in history, there isn't a Christian, Jewish or Buddhist equivalent to ISIS (knock wood)

On the other hand, there are about 3.5 million Muslims in the US.  Compared to the average population, they tend to have higher levels of educational attainment and income. While their Islamic belief may not be the *cause* of that result, it does undermine the claim that there is something inherent to Islam as opposed to other faiths that makes it inimical to human progress.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 18, 2019, 11:41:38 am


What other denominations, in the hundreds if not thousands that currently exist, use the medieval Catholic canon law? I mean probably some do. Some weird radical Catholic breakaway cult or something.



I didn't want to create a really long post of quotes and counter-points, so cut everything down except for the first statement so you know what I'm responding to.  When I asked about denominations, I thought we were talking about the middle ages, since "Medieval Catholic" is not a current denomination and comparing it to modern denomination or even the modern Catholic Church doesn't make much sense to me.


I also wanted to respond to the last statement you made in that post.  Yes, Christianity collapsed at the end of the Middle Ages.  Secular governments pretty much supplanted it, and created their own versions that would serve the state.  The power of the Catholic Church waxed and waned several times during this period.  There were times when a Pope could order an emperor to march around in the snow without shoes and other times was controlled by noble families in Rome.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on July 18, 2019, 04:28:52 pm

On the other hand, there are about 3.5 million Muslims in the US.  Compared to the average population, they tend to have higher levels of educational attainment and income. While their Islamic belief may not be the *cause* of that result, it does undermine the claim that there is something inherent to Islam as opposed to other faiths that makes it inimical to human progress.

I cut the rest of your post because I basically agree with all of it.

But this part - well, I don't disagree with it per se, but I think it misses the point.

The problems with Islam are not with practitioners of Islam who live in the US - at least, not in any significant sense from the standpoint of the numbers. I know plenty of Islamic people, and they are pretty much like all other religious Americans - they run the gamut from a bit fundy (but harmless) to mostly religious in name only. I don't think anyone has any issue with them by an large (a couple extreme examples notwithstanding, and lord knows if you want to worry about violence in the US, Islamic radicals ought to be about, I dunno, 8th on your list of concerns or something?).

But there are lgitimate concerns about Islamic ideas in the West in general, in places that are more vulnerable to radicalism because they are not as equipped to integrate, or where the numbers are just not the same.

And the dangers of radical Islamic thought to those who are actually living in countries where they have majority political control are real, and should be of concern to anyone who cares about human well being everywhere, not just at home.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 19, 2019, 12:06:03 am
Yeah the problem is the bad ideas in Islam. Which is not to say there are not plenty of other bad ideas out there or even that this is the worst thing ever, but it is a problem for those who live in societies and communities based on those ideas.

But I do get concerned about well meaning people insisting there are no bad ideas and no problem. I have great confidence that Muslims, and former Muslims, can work all this out for the most part but the conversation needs to be had in order for that to happen. Too many Muslim states, insular Muslim communities, and their political friends and allies seem to want that conversation to not happen. That would be a very bad for Muslims IMO...and the rest of the world as well.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: frunk on July 19, 2019, 06:01:09 am

But there are lgitimate concerns about Islamic ideas in the West in general, in places that are more vulnerable to radicalism because they are not as equipped to integrate, or where the numbers are just not the same.

This can be a concern, but Fundamentalist Christian thought in the US is the bigger threat here, both because of the numbers of adherents and the general acceptance of it in the wider populace as opposed to Islam.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 19, 2019, 06:06:11 am

But there are lgitimate concerns about Islamic ideas in the West in general, in places that are more vulnerable to radicalism because they are not as equipped to integrate, or where the numbers are just not the same.

This can be a concern, but Fundamentalist Christian thought in the US is the bigger threat here, both because of the numbers of adherents and the general acceptance of it in the wider populace as opposed to Islam.

While in Western Europe I would say that fundamentalist islam is the biggest potential religious issue.

e.g. in the US you have Christians protesting abortion education etc. Here in the UK, we have Muslims protesting (for months now) education plans in Birmingham which teach kids that same-sex couples are people too.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 19, 2019, 07:56:42 am
We do not only have fundamentalist Christianity but non-mainstream Christian cults that dominate some areas of the country. Hell in New York some local areas are dominated by Orthodox Jewish sects. It is a real problem. So while Muslims have generally been great immigrants I am not just super excited to see conservative Islam also start to dominate some areas locally. Great. Just what we need.

I am just thankful that after Islam I don't think there are any other similar religions that can move in.

I don't see fundamentalist Hindus or Sikhs starting to achieve local political dominance.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 19, 2019, 07:57:53 am
Here in the UK, we have Muslims protesting (for months now) education plans in Birmingham which teach kids that same-sex couples are people too.

I am kind of glad this is happening because it makes the issue harder to ignore.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 19, 2019, 08:00:36 am
I have read theories that China failed to industrialise because labour was much cheaper.  There was no incentive to replace cheap labour with machines.  You only need to replace expensive labour with machines. 

Yeah. Obviously the same kind of thing gets said about Brazil and the Southern US and other areas that relied on slavery and other forms of cheap labor for so long.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 19, 2019, 08:08:26 am
I have read theories that China failed to industrialise because labour was much cheaper.  There was no incentive to replace cheap labour with machines.  You only need to replace expensive labour with machines. 

Yeah. Obviously the same kind of thing gets said about Brazil and the Southern US and other areas that relied on slavery and other forms of cheap labor for so long.

I'd add the disclaimer of skilled labour here.
Labour was cheap in England and other places that did industrialise.
It was a desire to take advantage of this cheap labour that was a big part in giving us this  industrialisation.
Skilled labour however...it tended to keep its own numbers artificially small with the whole system of guilds et al which kept costs high.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on July 19, 2019, 08:36:20 am
I'd argue that the problem China had was a religious one, in the sense that Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion.  And the highest moral value was ascribed to filial piety - being a good son or daughter.  The way one showed filial piety was to follow the wishes of one's parents, even after their deaths.  That meant doing the same work as one's parents, because the change jobs was to essentially claim that one's parents had been in the wrong jobs. 

So long as population growth didn't provide too many people in the successive generations to fill the available jobs of the previous generation, this provided a great deal of social stability.  But when medicine improved to the point that population exploded, that social stability turned to social instability.  The Chinese couldn't undergo an industrial revolution without abandoning so many of the ideas that, they felt, made them Chinese and superior to other societies, but "modernization in accordance with traditional values" proved a contradiction in terms.  It took a real revolution in 1949 to finally cut the Gordian Knot.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 19, 2019, 09:57:20 am
I'd argue that the problem China had was a religious one, in the sense that Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion.  And the highest moral value was ascribed to filial piety - being a good son or daughter.  The way one showed filial piety was to follow the wishes of one's parents, even after their deaths.  That meant doing the same work as one's parents, because the change jobs was to essentially claim that one's parents had been in the wrong jobs. 

So long as population growth didn't provide too many people in the successive generations to fill the available jobs of the previous generation, this provided a great deal of social stability.  But when medicine improved to the point that population exploded, that social stability turned to social instability.  The Chinese couldn't undergo an industrial revolution without abandoning so many of the ideas that, they felt, made them Chinese and superior to other societies, but "modernization in accordance with traditional values" proved a contradiction in terms.  It took a real revolution in 1949 to finally cut the Gordian Knot.

I would argue against characterizing Neo-Confucianism as a "religion". If it can rightfully be a "religion", any school of thought or philosophy is a "religion" and the term loses any distinct meaning. 

Indeed, Neo-Confucianism was seen by its adherents as a humanistic and rationalistic reaction against ideas we would, in fact, more readily consider "religious": namely, Buddhism and Taoism. Its critics argued that Neo-Confucianism was itself 'infected' with concepts taken from Buddhism and, in particular, Taoism, but that's not really the same thing as it being a religion: the concepts that Neo-Confucianism took from Taoism were not particularly a "religious" way of seeing the world, more a philosophical one (namely, a concern with understanding humanity's relationship with the universe, whether morality is innate or learned, etc.).

The cornerstones of Neo-Confucianism weren't all that different from those of the Enlightenment in the West: the idea that reality is something that could be perceived through reason, and an emphasis on humanism. Which raises the question as to why Neo-Confucianism never lead to any flowering of science etc. The reason seems to be that Chinese philosophy remained straight-jacketed by pre-existing concepts, much as Western philosophy, for centuries, remained straight-jacketed by those derived from ancient Greece. 

Quote
Neo-Confucianism is a social and ethical philosophy using metaphysical ideas, some borrowed from Taoism, as its framework. The philosophy can be characterized as humanistic and rationalistic, with the belief that the universe could be understood through human reason, and that it was up to humanity to create a harmonious relationship between the universe and the individual.[4]

The rationalism of neo-Confucianism is in contrast to the mysticism of the previously dominant Chan Buddhism. Unlike the Buddhists, the neo-Confucians believed that reality existed, and could be understood by humankind, even if the interpretations of reality were slightly different depending on the school of neo-Confucianism.[4]

But the spirit of Neo-Confucian rationalism is diametrically opposed to that of Buddhist mysticism. Whereas Buddhism insisted on the unreality of things, Neo-Confucianism stressed their reality. Buddhism and Taoism asserted that existence came out of, and returned to, non-existence; Neo-Confucianism regarded reality as a gradual realization of the Great Ultimate... Buddhists, and to some degree, Taoists as well, relied on meditation and insight to achieve supreme reason; the Neo-Confucianists chose to follow Reason.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confucianism

This source is much more in-depth than a wiki article, concerning the leading Neo-Confucian thinker, Zhu Xi. Of particular note is the chapter on natural philosophy, which shows how this school of neo-Confucianism missed 'getting' science.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhu-xi/#InvThiForNatKnoAct

The Neo-Confucians created a philosophical view of reality, but it was something they believed they had discovered in nature, not something they believed was created by a god or gods. The problem with it was that it incorporated a bunch of Chinese philosophical baggage.   

Quote
4.2 Philosophic Synthesis
Zhu Xi erected a philosophical synthesis that has been compared broadly to the systems of Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Whitehead, and others. These “Great Chain” systems are hierarchical and rooted in the distinction between form and matter. Recent immanental readings of Zhu Xi’s thought have stirred comparisons with Spinoza and even Husserl (Choi 1999; Yeo 2013). Zhu Xi preserved the immanental character of his hierarchy by incorporating Zhou Dunyi’s conception of world (and self) as shown in the Diagram of the Supreme Polarity (Taiji tu), as a way to combine the Cheng brothers’ concept of li (pattern) with Zhang Zai’s notion of qi (cosmic vapor) as organically integrated in a holistic system. In Zhou’s treatise, Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Polarity (Taiji tu shuo) (Adler 2014), Zhu discerned a viable account of the formation of the world in stages from the original unformed qi, to yin and yang, the five phases, earth, wood, fire, water, and metal, and on to heaven, earth and the ten thousand things. Zhu blended this conception with ideas from the Book of Change and its commentaries in setting forth a comprehensive philosophy of cosmic and human creativity and providing philosophical grounds for the received Confucian concepts of human nature and self-cultivation.

Zhu Xi’s penchant for thinking in polarities, li and qi, in particular, has continued to stir critics to regard him as a dualist who used two fundamental concepts to explain reality. For his part, any viable account of the complexity of phenomena must involve two or more facets in order to register their complexity, variety, and changes. Zhu generalized the organic understanding of li and qi implied in Zhou Dunyi’s Explanation under a principle of complementarity, inspired by Cheng Hao’s observation that all things have their complement (discussed in the next section). At first, Zhu thought this principle only governed qi phenomena as patterned by li, but eventually he admitted that not only were yin and yang paradigmatic polar complements but that the supreme polarity (taiji) complemented the yin-yang polarity, and inferred that li and qi, as the references of taiji and yin-yang, respectively, too had to be complements. This meant that li and qi were functionally on a par and mutually implicative. Zhu still felt the need to prioritize li ontologically and ethically, however, for the reason that li underwrites both the possibility of qi ordering (to yield a world and phenomena) and the possibility of moral feelings and norms (to yield ethics and a system of rites). Treating li and qi as full ontological complements would quite possibly entail a Daoist conception of nature as pure spontaneity and ethics as just perspectival while prioritizing qi over li would be inadequate for understanding the world and phenomenal orders, and reduce ethics to the received norms.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 19, 2019, 10:11:22 am
An interesting post, thanks Malthus.


One of the reasons, Languish is all but the last 'social media' I still read.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 19, 2019, 12:54:50 pm
I would characterize it as a religion, but it was a religion much more like the Greek Philosophical religions such as Neo-Platoism or Pythagorasism.  Buddhism might also be one, but I'm not informed enough on the subject to speak confidently.  Religion need not be received by a higher power, or even have a higher power.  It can come from rationalism.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 19, 2019, 01:09:19 pm
I would characterize it as a religion, but it was a religion much more like the Greek Philosophical religions such as Neo-Platoism or Pythagorasism.  Buddhism might also be one, but I'm not informed enough on the subject to speak confidently.  Religion need not be received by a higher power, or even have a higher power.  It can come from rationalism.

The problem is that there is nothing really to differentiate these "religions" from any philosophy - and every urban-level society we know of has some sort of philosophy.

The argument was originally about the deleterious impact of religion on progress. If the apparent problem is not religion, but philosophy in general, the argument becomes a lot more difficult to sustain.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 19, 2019, 01:20:01 pm
Whether Buddhism is a religion or not depends entirely on what form it takes.

For 99% of Buddhists throughout history, it's most definitely a religion. Indeed, in some forms it's in some ways basically indistinguishable from Catholicism - it has saints, heaven and hell, prayers, monks and nuns, etc.

The actual teachings of the Buddha, as far as we can discern, are not religious - it's an approach to life. "Philosophical Buddhism" is popular in the West, but the actual numbers of people following it are tiny compared to the number following it in one of its expressly religious forms.   

Same is true for Taoism. The actual Taoist classics, the Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu, are not works or religion, but of philosophy. "Taoism", however, as actually practiced, is a religion - though there have always been "philosophical Taoists" in China, usually among the inteligensia and in particular, among artists - the Chinese arts, in particular calligraphy and painting, were hugely influenced by philosophical Taoism.

 
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on July 19, 2019, 02:09:34 pm

But there are lgitimate concerns about Islamic ideas in the West in general, in places that are more vulnerable to radicalism because they are not as equipped to integrate, or where the numbers are just not the same.

This can be a concern, but Fundamentalist Christian thought in the US is the bigger threat here, both because of the numbers of adherents and the general acceptance of it in the wider populace as opposed to Islam.

I think my credentials as someone worried about fundy Christian influence on US politics are well established. :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Berkut on July 19, 2019, 02:14:01 pm

The argument was originally about the deleterious impact of religion on progress.

Correction: THe argument was originally about the deleterious impact on progress of a specific religion on a specific time.

I don't think it is at all reasonable to say "All religious ideas have a deleterious impact on progress". That is clearly not true theoretically, nor in actual practical reality.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 19, 2019, 02:50:25 pm

The argument was originally about the deleterious impact of religion on progress.

Correction: THe argument was originally about the deleterious impact on progress of a specific religion on a specific time.

I don't think it is at all reasonable to say "All religious ideas have a deleterious impact on progress". That is clearly not true theoretically, nor in actual practical reality.

Fair enough.

Though by the same token, it is worth pointing out that, in some nations, non-religious ideas have had a deleterious impact on progress.

I do not think it adds to the analysis by defining these non-religious ideas as, in essence, religious.

Rather, the question should be: among ideas, both religious and not, what about them has had deleterious effects on progress, and how significant were those effects when compared with other factors that likewise had deleterious effects on progress?

In the case of China, an argument can be made that Neo-Confucianism, as embodied in the Chinese exam system in particular, had a definite deleterious impact on progress - despite the fact that Neo-Confucianism was, in fact, a rational and humanistic philosophy, and in the West at least, rationalism and humanism are usually thought of as creating progress.

So what has this in common with (say) Wahhabi Islam? Certainly not much, when it comes to the content of their respective ideas!

Perhaps the key is this: in both cases, the dominant ideas achieved what amounted to a strangle-hold over the majority of intellectuals. The real issue is not necessarily the extremism of the content of ideas (Wahhabi Islam is extreme and Neo-Confucianism is not), but rather the degree to which they become unquestioned. Neo-Confucianism managed to do this through the support of the official bureaucracy as represented by the exam system - you only got a position as an official if you could write complex essays based on the Neo-Confucian interpretation of the Confucian classics. Wahhabis used a more primitive method, murderous persecution.

In the West, there were lots of ideas every bit as extreme as Wahhabi Islam - for example, look at England during the 17th century, with Puritans running around smashing Churches and outlawing dancing, with Fifth Monarchy Men trying to take over London in the name of "King Jesus"; the difference being, that no one sect was able to impose its ideas on everyone to the point where they became unquestioned. England in particular was forced to find ways of living with a population radically divided among irreconcilable cults, and while it's response to that seems primitive by our standards, it eventually lead to the series of compromises that - eventually - required more or less freedom of thought.

Neo-Confucianism is more like the ancient Greek doctrine of the "humours" in medicine - a set of ideas that, not religious in any way themselves, because ossified as orthodoxy and so retarded actual progress, just as medical theory could only advance when the theory of "humours" was discarded. The thesis here is that it isn't the content of ideas that is harmful to progress, but rather the ability of ideas to become orthodoxy that is harmful - and even quite benign ideas can do this. Though of course it is more noticeable and obnoxious if the ideas are not benign.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Monoriu on July 19, 2019, 05:39:53 pm
I think one of the problems of Confucianism is that, while it attempts to address real world problems with real world solutions, it tends to focus on human relationships almost exclusively.  There is very little on finding the truth or about the relationship between humans and the world.  So when I read Chinese history books there is a lot of information on politics, wars, moral stories, etc.  Very little on science, economics, statistics, inventions.  The ideal is always perfect harmony among people, rather than finding out about the fundamental laws of nature.  And when there is a conflict between the two, harmony wins.  It is troublesome when the guy in charge declares that the earth is flat. 
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on July 19, 2019, 06:48:03 pm
I would argue against characterizing Neo-Confucianism as a "religion". If it can rightfully be a "religion", any school of thought or philosophy is a "religion" and the term loses any distinct meaning. 

Indeed, Neo-Confucianism was seen by its adherents as a humanistic and rationalistic reaction against ideas we would, in fact, more readily consider "religious": namely, Buddhism and Taoism. Its critics argued that Neo-Confucianism was itself 'infected' with concepts taken from Buddhism and, in particular, Taoism, but that's not really the same thing as it being a religion: the concepts that Neo-Confucianism took from Taoism were not particularly a "religious" way of seeing the world, more a philosophical one (namely, a concern with understanding humanity's relationship with the universe, whether morality is innate or learned, etc.).

The cornerstones of Neo-Confucianism weren't all that different from those of the Enlightenment in the West: the idea that reality is something that could be perceived through reason, and an emphasis on humanism. Which raises the question as to why Neo-Confucianism never lead to any flowering of science etc. The reason seems to be that Chinese philosophy remained straight-jacketed by pre-existing concepts, much as Western philosophy, for centuries, remained straight-jacketed by those derived from ancient Greece. 

My argument that "Confucianism (and especially Neo-Confucianism) was, for all intents and purposes, a religion" is not, obviously, an argument that it was literally, a religion, any more that my argument that Marxism was one, even though many of its followers acted pretty much exactly like it was one.

Neo-Confucianism took a lot of the mystical elements of Taoism, in particular the concept of a separate "heaven" that acted, not in accordance with the will of some 'gods' or other, but, rather, as a force in the universe much like gravity - pervasive, but not completely understood.  The tenets of Neo-Confucianism were not subject to change through observation and correction; they were based on universal truths (including the truth that ritual had an impact on the environment, and not just the person engaging in the ritual).  The key to understanding the burden the Confucianism to some extent, and Neo-Confucianism to a greater extent, placed on modernization was that the Chinese were sure they had the answer to the problems of society, and so were dismissive of any knowledge or progress that didn't bring them closer to that answer.  That's what religions effectively do to retard progress.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 19, 2019, 07:11:06 pm
I would characterize it as a religion, but it was a religion much more like the Greek Philosophical religions such as Neo-Platoism or Pythagorasism.  Buddhism might also be one, but I'm not informed enough on the subject to speak confidently.  Religion need not be received by a higher power, or even have a higher power.  It can come from rationalism.

The problem is that there is nothing really to differentiate these "religions" from any philosophy - and every urban-level society we know of has some sort of philosophy.

The argument was originally about the deleterious impact of religion on progress. If the apparent problem is not religion, but philosophy in general, the argument becomes a lot more difficult to sustain.


Yes, it does become rather hard to sustain doesn't it?  I should point out that the philosophy I mentioned were very much religious.  Pythagoras had a cult and Neo-Platoism was the preferred religion of the Emperor Julian.  Unlike Marxism these religions focused very heavily on metaphysics and promoted belief such Monad and a demiurge.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on July 23, 2019, 06:09:37 am
Poor Hunt. Just a third.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: HVC on July 23, 2019, 06:20:08 am
Listened to the announcement on the radio. Were they trying to be the oscars or something?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 23, 2019, 06:56:19 am
One thing I am now slightly surprised didn't get more attention was his casual use of "oppidans" on what IIRC was the people of Britain in general.

I know its Eton slang for pupils who board in town, but also -as I've recently realised reading a book on Augustus- was the Roman word for the towns of the conquered natives.

Hardly a flattering association. But nobody seems to mind.


Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 23, 2019, 07:13:56 am
One thing I am now slightly surprised didn't get more attention was his casual use of "oppidans" on what IIRC was the people of Britain in general.

I know its Eton slang for pupils who board in town, but also -as I've recently realised reading a book on Augustus- was the Roman word for the towns of the conquered natives.

Hardly a flattering association. But nobody seems to mind.

What do you expect from our soon to be bullshitter in chief.

All of these classical illusions are just frippery to cover up the core problem with him, he wings it, fobbing off people with this comedy/charm act, because he has no clear policy or set of internally consistent set of values.

In other words the Boris Johnson show is camouflage for a colossal ambition with delusions of being the great statesman, but from someone unwilling to have ever put in the necessary serious work.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 23, 2019, 07:32:38 am

Quote

Ivanka Trump 
@IvankaTrump
    
Congratulations @BorisJohnson on becoming the next Prime Minister of the United Kingston.


 :huh:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on July 23, 2019, 07:33:36 am
The Trumps love him.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 23, 2019, 07:37:56 am
The Trumps love him.

Oh indeed.

And welcome to the 51st state.  :(
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 23, 2019, 07:41:13 am
I wish we weren't in the middle of the biggest crisis to face the country since the war. As PM BJ might have been funny.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 23, 2019, 08:05:46 am
The Trumps love him.

Oh indeed.

And welcome to the 51st state.  :(

If I could hope for Hungary staying in the EU on the long term, I could have been ok with that. :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on July 23, 2019, 08:11:24 am
The special relationship just got specialer. :)
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 23, 2019, 08:21:08 am
The special relationship just got specialer. :)

Same hairstyle. :)
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Savonarola on July 23, 2019, 08:21:15 am

Quote

Ivanka Trump 
@IvankaTrump
    
Congratulations @BorisJohnson on becoming the next Prime Minister of the United Kingston.


 :huh:

Funky United Kingston :smoke:

Quote
Matteo Salvini

@matteosalvinimi

Buon lavoro a #BorisJohnson.
Il fatto che da sinistra lo dipingano “più pericoloso della Lega” me lo rende ancor più simpatico😊
@BorisJohnson

"The fact that the left depicts him as 'More dangerous than the Lega' makes me like him even more."

Darwkwing Johnson - Let's get dangerous  :ph34r:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Monoriu on July 23, 2019, 09:50:02 am
All hail Prime Minister Johnson. 
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Syt on July 23, 2019, 10:51:15 am
Do I understand correctly that less than 0.4% of voters got to pick the new PM?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Grey Fox on July 23, 2019, 11:05:03 am
Do I understand correctly that less than 0.4% of voters got to pick the new PM?

Yes, that is how their parliamentary system works. The same coalition still forms the government, it just has a new leader.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on July 23, 2019, 11:23:06 am
All hail Prime Minister Johnson. 

:worthy:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Syt on July 23, 2019, 01:03:52 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAKD5lIW4AAut08?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Grey Fox on July 23, 2019, 01:32:40 pm
I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 23, 2019, 01:33:14 pm
Hey you don't know. PM Johnson might immediately call for an election.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on July 23, 2019, 02:36:50 pm
I'm kinda looking forward to his first PMQ time...it should be a hoot.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 23, 2019, 02:53:43 pm
I'm kinda looking forward to his first PMQ time...it should be a hoot.

I heard parts of his acceptance speech.  It sounded like an improve comedian with bad timing.  Most of his lines were delivered in a mocking tone like he was about to make a joke but there was no punch line - unless he is the punchline.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: HVC on July 23, 2019, 02:57:20 pm
where's he from? he sounds... different.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 23, 2019, 02:58:31 pm
Most of his lines were delivered in a mocking tone like he was about to make a joke but there was no punch line - unless he is the punchline.

That sounds like one of those 90s Saturday Night Live sketches. No-Punch-Line Ned it would have been called.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 23, 2019, 03:32:42 pm
I think his stint as foreign secretary has exposed him as really not very good.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Maladict on July 23, 2019, 03:39:03 pm
where's he from? he sounds... different.

He is not of this world.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Larch on July 23, 2019, 04:23:26 pm
where's he from? he sounds... different.

Boris? Not really from anywhere in particular...he was born in New York while his father was studying there and spent his early childhood hopping between the UK and wherever his parents were studying or working (Oxford, London, Washington, Connetticutt, Brussels...), until he was 12, when he started attending fancy boarding schools, ending up in Eton and then in Oxford, living in London when he was not in school. So, his speech is basically posh nerd with a London twang, or something like that.  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 23, 2019, 06:26:27 pm
where's he from? he sounds... different.

Boris? Not really from anywhere in particular...he was born in New York while his father was studying there and spent his early childhood hopping between the UK and wherever his parents were studying or working (Oxford, London, Washington, Connetticutt, Brussels...), until he was 12, when he started attending fancy boarding schools, ending up in Eton and then in Oxford, living in London when he was not in school. So, his speech is basically posh nerd with a London twang upper-class twit, or something like that.  :P

FYP.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2019, 06:48:49 pm
He doesn't really have an upper class twit accent.  That's Rees-Mogg.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 23, 2019, 07:14:48 pm
He doesn't really have an upper class twit accent.  That's Rees-Mogg.

No Rees-Mogg is more a plummy variant, Johnson's is thoroughly upper class, his diction and cadence are well within the range of posh twits.  :bowler:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 23, 2019, 07:18:48 pm
Incidentally I was in Westminster for the Blair-Brown baton handover, but I'm sure as hell don't going anywhere near the May-Johnson passing of the poison chalice; I should get very drunk instead.  :bowler:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2019, 07:20:49 pm
No Rees-Mogg is more a plummy variant, Johnson's is thoroughly upper class, his diction and cadence are well within the range of posh twits.  :bowler:

And I maintain that not all upper class accents qualify as upper class twit accents.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 23, 2019, 07:20:59 pm
Caught a video earlier of some interviewers asking his dad what he thought of things.
Papa Johnson could say little more than we survived the war  so he was confident we would pull through
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 24, 2019, 12:01:02 am
It's like the US and the UK are in some sort of drunken dare contest.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 24, 2019, 07:51:46 am
It's like the US and the UK are in some sort of drunken dare contest.

:yes:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zanza on July 24, 2019, 08:20:17 am
I think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson definitely qualifies as upper class twat.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 24, 2019, 09:24:47 am
I think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson definitely qualifies as upper class twat.

To be fair to him, his background shouldn't condemn him, after all the upper class Harold McMillan was a decent PM, no it's his behaviour in and out of office that's proven your judgement.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 24, 2019, 09:28:53 am
Climate protesters momentarily block Johnson's motorcade to the palace. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 24, 2019, 09:48:31 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAP2jWCUcAQh_dx?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 24, 2019, 09:49:29 am
I feel sorry for the Queen. If BoJo doesn't screw up, he might be the last PM she ever appoints, considering her advanced age. What a low point to end a reign with.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 24, 2019, 09:58:36 am
Quote
It is time to unleash the productive power of the whole of the UK - the “awesome foursome” that is the whole of the UK.

Quote
Never mind the backstop - the buck stops here.

:bleeding:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 24, 2019, 10:03:29 am
I feel sorry for the Queen. If BoJo doesn't screw up, he might be the last PM she ever appoints, considering her advanced age. What a low point to end a reign with.

Wouldn't it be worse if he does screw up?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on July 24, 2019, 10:14:05 am
Zero Sum Politics, baby! :lol:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Razgovory on July 24, 2019, 10:48:29 am
I feel sorry for the Queen. If BoJo doesn't screw up, he might be the last PM she ever appoints, considering her advanced age. What a low point to end a reign with.


She is probably wondering why she is shaking hands with a shaved Orangutan.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 24, 2019, 12:50:15 pm
Quote
It is time to unleash the productive power of the whole of the UK - the “awesome foursome” that is the whole of the UK.

Quote
Never mind the backstop - the buck stops here.

:bleeding:

A line from the last episode of Years and Years comes to mind about the PM not actually saying anything that means anything.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 24, 2019, 01:57:52 pm
Quote
It is time to unleash the productive power of the whole of the UK - the “awesome foursome” that is the whole of the UK.

Quote
Never mind the backstop - the buck stops here.

:bleeding:

A line from the last episode of Years and Years comes to mind about the PM not actually saying anything that means anything.

Pfft, the Boris BS charm offensive will disarm the Europeans over the next 99 days and lead to their surrender, pleading for the English to become their feudal overlords.  :bowler:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 24, 2019, 02:02:03 pm
Lord Patten, a senior conservative of the old school and the last governor of Hong Kong, had this to say on Johnson :

"In Italy, Corriere della Sera published an interview with the veteran Tory politician Chris Patten, who described the favourite to become Britain’s next prime minister as “Trump’s poodle: a liar who does not pay attention to the detail of reality, tells people what they want to hear and relies on their ignorance”.

Patten said Johnson exemplified the “collapse of rationality, of the relationship between the facts and what we believe” in present-day politics. “What he is offering is impossible.”"


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/13/mini-trump-across-the-channel-european-media-on-boris-johnson-as-british-pm

The Romans presumably thought things were bound to get better after Caracalla; I suspect that May was our Caracalla.

Worth quoting as this is so true of the 'man'
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2019, 02:37:17 pm
So it seems like Brexit, and no deal Brexit at that, is really going to happen. I've been proven wrong on a few fronts.

1. I had long believed that due to the obvious lack of ability for Parliament to come to a cohesive agreement about what form Brexit should take, some adult in leadership would have promulgated either a re-run of the referendum--now that the public has a clearer picture of what Brexit will look like, or at least some sort of process where the public got to actually weigh in again. That is clearly not going to happen, there was no "adult in the room" I guess. I remain deeply confused why the country that birthed the Westminster system chose to allow a referendum on EU membership in the first place, instead of vesting decisions to leave or stay with Parliament, the font of all real legislative power in the UK. Instead of the supposedly reasoned judgment of a deliberative legislative body, a decision of great importance was basically given over to a mob, easily swayed by deceptive advertising and the result was a narrow win for leave. Based on a couple percentage points in a plebiscite Britain is making a very momentous decision.

I really thought for a long time at some point they'd simply say "we need to give the entire idea a second look."

2. If that didn't happen, I assumed the Tories would never lead Britain into the abyss of a no deal Brexit, and assumed after all the posturing, May and her party would cobble together agreement on the proffered EU deal, pretend it was a victory, May resigns and the world moves on. Instead the party has given BoJo the keys and he's one a single track towards no deal Brexit with very little chance in my mind that anything else happens.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on July 24, 2019, 04:38:20 pm
It's pretty amazing that Parliament could vote down BoJo's current plan last march by 374-164, and now just allow him to do that anyway.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Iormlund on July 24, 2019, 05:09:42 pm
The only thing they can do to avoid it is sack him and trigger a General Election, in which quite a few will lose their seats.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 24, 2019, 05:51:48 pm
It's pretty amazing that Parliament could vote down BoJo's current plan last march by 374-164, and now just allow him to do that anyway.

Parliament hasn't let him do anything.  This could be a very short stint for the current PM.  He could go down in a confidence vote.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 24, 2019, 07:34:08 pm
I now think a no-deal Brexit is the most likely outcome, especially with him outside N010 nailing his colours to the mast (or as far as you can trust someone like him)

I'd like to think parliament could stop him and on the face of it you'd think the Tory remainers would vote for country over him at the crunch point.  But my fear is more labour MPs will vote leave, thinking of their careers/re-election than the number of Tories who will to bring down a Johnson government over it.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Syt on July 25, 2019, 10:44:58 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAP9FvHVAAEisFx?format=png&name=900x900)

"In detail."  :lol:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Syt on July 25, 2019, 10:49:17 am
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49107417

Quote
Boris Johnson has promised the "beginning of a new golden age", as he made his first Commons statement as PM.

Speaking to MPs, Mr Johnson said his government would throw itself into Brexit negotiations with energy, while Michael Gove would lead on no-deal planning as a "top priority".

He also said EU citizens living in the UK would have their rights protected.

But Downing Street was unable to confirm if there would be any new laws to underpin the commitment.

Tory MP Alberto Costa - who has campaigned for EU citizens' rights after Brexit - welcomed Mr Johnson's pledge, but said "the devil, as ever, is in the detail" and he would be "scrutinising how that guarantee comes forward".

Replying to his statement in the Commons, Jeremy Corbyn said people "do not trust" the new PM to deliver on his promises.

And Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has written to Mr Johnson to say it is "essential" her country has an alternative option to his Brexit plan.

The statement came after the first meeting of Mr Johnson's new cabinet, who he said had all committed to leaving the EU on or before 31 October, "no ifs, no buts".

New secretaries of state include former leadership contender Sajid Javid as chancellor, and leading Brexiteers, with Dominic Raab as foreign secretary and Priti Patel as home secretary.

More junior ministers are expected to be announced later, with further reshuffling on Friday.

Mr Johnson has also held his first calls with other foreign leaders - including Dutch PM Mark Rutte and Australian PM Scott Morrison - and is due to speak to the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker later.

What did the PM say in his statement?

Much of Mr Johnson's statement focused on his plans for Brexit.

Despite emphasising the importance of preparing for no deal, the new prime minister said he would "much prefer" to leave the EU with an agreement, saying he would work "flat out to make it happen".

However, he told MPs the withdrawal agreement his predecessor, Theresa May, had negotiated with the EU was "unacceptable to this Parliament and to this country".

That plan was voted down three times by MPs, with one of the controversial parts being the Northern Ireland backstop - a mechanism to avoid physical checks on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in case of a no-deal Brexit.

Mr Johnson has pledged to scrap this element of the plan, saying alternative arrangements to keep checks away from the border were "perfectly compatible" with the Good Friday Agreement - the peace agreement signed in 1998.

The EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said eliminating the backstop from the withdrawal agreement was "unacceptable", and after Mr Johnson's "rather combative speech", the bloc will have to "be ready for all scenarios"
.

The Labour leader said the country was "deeply worried the new prime minister overestimates himself".

Mr Corbyn added: "People do not trust this prime minister to make the right choices for the majority of the people in this country when he's also promising tax giveaways to the richest of big business - his own party's funders [a policy Mr Johnson proposed during the leadership campaign]".

Mr Corbyn also asked the PM to rule out "once and for all" the NHS would form part of a trade deal with the US, following comments made by President Donald Trump on his visit to the UK in June.

Mr Johnson said: "Under no circumstances would we agree to any free-trade deal that put the NHS on the table."

What did Mr Johnson tell Cabinet?

After a raft of resignations, sackings and appointments on Wednesday night, Mr Johnson addressed his cabinet for the first time as prime minister early on Thursday.

He told the cabinet they had "a momentous task ahead", as he repeated his commitment for the UK to leave the EU on 31 October - calling it "a pivotal moment in our country's history".

He said the new team respected the "depth and breadth of talent in our extraordinary party", who were "not going to wait until 31 October to get on with a fantastic new agenda for our country... delivering the priorities of the people".

Who is in cabinet?
The swift changeover of cabinets between the previous premiership and Mr Johnson's saw more than half of Theresa May's ministers - including leadership rival Jeremy Hunt - quit or be sacked.

Former Foreign Secretary Mr Hunt said he had been offered an alternative role but had turned it down, while leading Brexiteers Penny Mordaunt and Liam Fox were also replaced as defence secretary and international trade secretary respectively.

Other key appointments included:

Stephen Barclay: Brexit secretary (retains post)
Michael Gove: Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and no-deal Brexit planning
Ben Wallace: Defence secretary
Liz Truss: International trade secretary
Matt Hancock: Health secretary (retains post)
Gavin Williamson: Education secretary
Nicky Morgan: Culture secretary
Andrea Leadsom: Business secretary
Amber Rudd: Work and pensions secretary (retains post)
Jacob Rees-Mogg: Leader of the Commons

The appointments have already faced criticism from the opposition, with the chair of the Labour Party, Ian Lavery, calling it "a cabinet of hard-line conservatives who will only represent the privileged few".

He comments were echoed by independent MP Nick Boles - who resigned the Conservative whip over Brexit - saying the "few elements remaining of the liberal one-nation Conservative style are neutered captives in this cabinet".

But the new Leader of the House, Mr Rees-Mogg, who led the pro-Brexit Tory European Research Group (ERG), denied there had been a "Leave" takeover of the cabinet.

"Boris is bringing the country together, the party together, through his cabinet appointments," he said.

The newly appointed Lib Dem leader, Jo Swinson, has tabled an early day motion expressing a lack of confidence in the prime minister - although such motions are rarely debated and generally used to draw attention to an issue.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 25, 2019, 11:16:29 am
It is unbelievable that he and his il is left to go away with repeating "alternative arrangements" that of course do not exist and will not exist.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 25, 2019, 11:37:23 am
It is unbelievable that he and his il is left to go away with repeating "alternative arrangements" that of course do not exist and will not exist.

Tamas, it's just right-wing populist bullshit, makes no sense, isn't suppose to, just 'designed' to appeal to an electorally crucial narrow section of the electorate.

I suggest you stop trying to listen to him, otherwise you'll end up with a heart attack.

Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 25, 2019, 11:49:36 am
Narrow? Y'all did vote "Leave", remember.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on July 25, 2019, 12:23:16 pm
Yeah. Democracy is a bitch: you can't blame others.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 25, 2019, 12:28:05 pm
At least he mentioned the Good Friday Agreement.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 25, 2019, 01:35:25 pm
Narrow? Y'all did vote "Leave", remember.

hardly in numbers that would justify a characterization as "Y'all" if I am understanding US slang correctly.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 25, 2019, 01:50:40 pm
It is unbelievable that he and his il is left to go away with repeating "alternative arrangements" that of course do not exist and will not exist.

Tamas, it's just right-wing populist bullshit, makes no sense, isn't suppose to, just 'designed' to appeal to an electorally crucial narrow section of the electorate.

I suggest you stop trying to listen to him, otherwise you'll end up with a heart attack.

Yes but why is the press letting him and other get away with it?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 25, 2019, 02:24:32 pm
Narrow? Y'all did vote "Leave", remember.

hardly in numbers that would justify a characterization as "Y'all" if I am understanding US slang correctly.

Clearly you aren't.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2019, 02:34:46 pm
That article mostly reads to me that BoJo doesn't really intend to try at all to avoid No-Deal Brexit, sounds like he'll make noise about it but that his actual cabinet is primarily focusing on preparing for the mechanics No Deal Brexit, which I think reveal that is his real goal now. Having not followed the constitutional machinations closely, does No Deal Brexit happen automatically on 10/31? Or does Parliament still have to have some sort of affirmative vote before it occurs.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 25, 2019, 02:44:11 pm
That article mostly reads to me that BoJo doesn't really intend to try at all to avoid No-Deal Brexit, sounds like he'll make noise about it but that his actual cabinet is primarily focusing on preparing for the mechanics No Deal Brexit, which I think reveal that is his real goal now. Having not followed the constitutional machinations closely, does No Deal Brexit happen automatically on 10/31? Or does Parliament still have to have some sort of affirmative vote before it occurs.

Several journalists are betting on him gunning for no deal not because he wants it, but because Parliament will block it from happening, which will "force his hand" to call a general election.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: HVC on July 25, 2019, 02:48:26 pm
at this point does it matter what parliament wants? I thought the EU was kicking them out at that deadline?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 25, 2019, 02:50:44 pm
Narrow? Y'all did vote "Leave", remember.

hardly in numbers that would justify a characterization as "Y'all" if I am understanding US slang correctly.

Clearly you aren't.

If you are going to use regional slang it is only polite to explain it to him -_-

Anyway it just means a plural you. If there is just one person then you say 'ya'.

How ya doin'?

vs.

How y'all doin?

But it is not really a contraction of "you all".
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on July 25, 2019, 02:57:21 pm
That article mostly reads to me that BoJo doesn't really intend to try at all to avoid No-Deal Brexit, sounds like he'll make noise about it but that his actual cabinet is primarily focusing on preparing for the mechanics No Deal Brexit, which I think reveal that is his real goal now. Having not followed the constitutional machinations closely, does No Deal Brexit happen automatically on 10/31? Or does Parliament still have to have some sort of affirmative vote before it occurs.

Several journalists are betting on him gunning for no deal not because he wants it, but because Parliament will block it from happening, which will "force his hand" to call a general election.

With him being viewed disfavorably by 58% of the country already, how is a general election to his or his party's benefit?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tamas on July 25, 2019, 03:11:53 pm
That article mostly reads to me that BoJo doesn't really intend to try at all to avoid No-Deal Brexit, sounds like he'll make noise about it but that his actual cabinet is primarily focusing on preparing for the mechanics No Deal Brexit, which I think reveal that is his real goal now. Having not followed the constitutional machinations closely, does No Deal Brexit happen automatically on 10/31? Or does Parliament still have to have some sort of affirmative vote before it occurs.

Several journalists are betting on him gunning for no deal not because he wants it, but because Parliament will block it from happening, which will "force his hand" to call a general election.

With him being viewed disfavorably by 58% of the country already, how is a general election to his or his party's benefit?

IDK. It's quite possibly people grasping at straws. They had great stalling with the Tory election, now a great further stalling could be achieved by a general election.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Iormlund on July 25, 2019, 03:37:33 pm
A General Election only helps the Tories if Brexit is over and Farage is no longer splitting their vote in two.


My hunch is that Boris will try to save the party by going for No-Deal and trying to paint it as the EU's fault.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on July 25, 2019, 03:54:39 pm
and Farage is no longer splitting their vote in two.

Thank you for that mental image.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zanza on July 25, 2019, 05:16:19 pm
at this point does it matter what parliament wants? I thought the EU was kicking them out at that deadline?
The EU does not kick Britain out. Britain invoked Article 50 and set the process in motion to leave. Considering the previous extension that means at 31st October all primary and secondary law of the EU will no longer apply to the UK. That is the direct consequence of the UK's action, not of EU action. The UK has a unilateral right to abort the process. Parliament could force government to do that.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zanza on July 25, 2019, 05:18:26 pm
My hunch is that Boris will try to save the party by going for No-Deal and trying to paint it as the EU's fault.
That's clearly already happening.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 25, 2019, 05:19:28 pm
Narrow? Y'all did vote "Leave", remember.

hardly in numbers that would justify a characterization as "Y'all" if I am understanding US slang correctly.

Clearly you aren't.

If you are going to use regional slang it is only polite to explain it to him -_-

Anyway it just means a plural you. If there is just one person then you say 'ya'.

How ya doin'?

vs.

How y'all doin?

But it is not really a contraction of "you all".

Learned something, I thought it meant you all.  As in all of the people being referred to.  How does one interpret the subset of y’all when a group is being referred to?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on July 25, 2019, 05:34:59 pm
Learned something, I thought it meant you all.  As in all of the people being referred to.  How does one interpret the subset of y’all when a group is being referred to?

"Y'all" is singular.  "All Y'all" is plural.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 25, 2019, 05:47:17 pm
By default no deal happens October 31st.
There's been a lot of talk about BJ purposefully closing parliament before this so parliament can do nothing about it and it happens.

It is 100% still within the UK's power to unilaterally cancel Brexit. But our MPs are cowards who care more about their jobs than the country so...   

May's deal is also still officially there and ready to be signed I think. Though I have to say I half expect some European nation to veto it if BJ goes down that route. Which he won't.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 25, 2019, 05:56:03 pm
Learned something, I thought it meant you all.  As in all of the people being referred to.  How does one interpret the subset of y’all when a group is being referred to?

"All y'all", as grumbler said.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on July 25, 2019, 05:58:48 pm
Learned something, I thought it meant you all.  As in all of the people being referred to.  How does one interpret the subset of y’all when a group is being referred to?

"Y'all" is singular.  "All Y'all" is plural.

Except for when y'all is used as a plural.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on July 25, 2019, 07:19:29 pm
"Y'all" is singular.  "All Y'all" is plural.

Except for when y'all is used as a plural.

Or when all y'all is used as a singular.

Face it, people who use the word "y'all" or the phrase "all y'all" are not people who know or care about grammar.  Like "you," meaning has to be sussed out by context.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 25, 2019, 07:30:04 pm
I obey very concise rules for the usage of y'all....y'all -_-
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Eddie Teach on July 25, 2019, 07:48:52 pm
In this case, it's both a singular(Britain) and a plural(the British), but obviously isn't a claim of unanimity.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 25, 2019, 10:23:36 pm
98 days to Brexit, so what happened today, parliament broke up for it's six week (42 day) summer holiday.   :bowler: <_<
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Admiral Yi on July 26, 2019, 01:35:39 am
Plenty of time to accept May's deal.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 26, 2019, 04:43:15 am
Seen elsewhere:

Quote
Boris became PM with 92k votes. Boaty McBoatface got 124k and was overruled for being a bloody stupid idea....

:lol:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Maladict on July 26, 2019, 04:53:13 am
 :D
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 26, 2019, 08:03:04 am
Learned something, I thought it meant you all.  As in all of the people being referred to.  How does one interpret the subset of y’all when a group is being referred to?

"Y'all" is singular.  "All Y'all" is plural.

Thank you for the explanation.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: grumbler on July 26, 2019, 12:02:14 pm
Learned something, I thought it meant you all.  As in all of the people being referred to.  How does one interpret the subset of y’all when a group is being referred to?

"Y'all" is singular.  "All Y'all" is plural.

Thank you for the explanation.

That's actually a redneck joke.  I think they use "y'all" and "all y'all" interchangeably.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on July 26, 2019, 01:39:17 pm
Where I came from, "y'all" was exclusively plural.  Actually, in my part of West Virginia "yewall" was more commonly used.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 26, 2019, 01:48:53 pm
Yeah I have never heard y'all used as a singular. Where I come from that is 'ya'. Granted some parts of the south are a bit more in love with "y'all" then others.

We just cannot seem to keep the topic on BoJo. Clearly he is no Trump.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zanza on July 26, 2019, 02:42:11 pm
Rules given by the new Leader of the House to his staff.  :bowler:
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/1934340/stream_img.jpg)
(https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/1934341/stream_img.jpg)

At least they seem to have their priorities right and address the pressing issues of the day.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: derspiess on July 26, 2019, 02:46:38 pm
:wub:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on July 26, 2019, 02:51:48 pm
No more "I love you's".
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 26, 2019, 03:00:58 pm
No more "I love you's".

No longer fit for purpose. What a disappointment.  :cry:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: alfred russel on July 26, 2019, 03:06:53 pm
The country is facing incredible challenges and he is worried about titles, etiquette, and grammar?

I am pleased to learn that the old British spirit is back!!!  :bowler:

Oh wait.  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tonitrus on July 26, 2019, 03:20:59 pm
All hail the double space.  :)
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2019, 03:29:59 pm
Dear Mr. Johnson:

Due to the ongoing Brexit crisis, I ascertain Ms. Theresa May, M.P., Esq. was deemed no longer fit for purpose. I am pleased to learn that you yourself have taken on the job. Although one can only speculate what is to come, surely you will be equal to the task. As it happens my office is only a few hundred meters from 10 Downing Street. Hopefully, I can meet with you soon and, discuss plans to invest in the NHS. I note your concerns about costs but know you agree the NHS are so critical to Britain, so a refusal would cause great disappointment.

P.S. I I I I I
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Malthus on July 26, 2019, 04:54:57 pm
Admittedly, "I note/understand your concerns" is annoying.  :D

"I realize you made some noises with your mouth, or squiggles on paper, representing your completely worthless point of view; that realization will not stop me for a nanosecond from politely ignoring them, much as I would politely ignore a loud fart in company."
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Duque de Bragança on July 26, 2019, 05:07:11 pm
So the metric system is not yet banned, only imperial is preferred.  :hmm: For now!  :P
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Larch on July 26, 2019, 05:21:05 pm
It should have started noting that it's Rees-Mogg the one putting forward those rules, it makes it so much more understandable.  :lol:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zoupa on July 26, 2019, 08:01:17 pm
In many ways the UK is going to be more fucked up than the US, and way sooner.

Huh. Who would have thought.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: mongers on July 26, 2019, 09:22:09 pm
In many ways the UK is going to be more fucked up than the US, and way sooner.

Huh. Who would have thought.

Indeed.

For one we don't have cast-iron written constitution for lash ourselves to during the coming storm.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: ulmont on July 26, 2019, 09:46:58 pm
In many ways the UK is going to be more fucked up than the US, and way sooner.

Huh. Who would have thought.

The UK started this 5 months earlier than the US.  :contract:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Syt on July 29, 2019, 10:55:39 am
BoJo receives a warm welcome in Scotland (video with sound at tweet):

https://twitter.com/i/status/1155868435760500737
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 29, 2019, 11:10:25 am
In many ways the UK is going to be more fucked up than the US, and way sooner.

Huh. Who would have thought.

Indeed.

For one we don't have cast-iron written constitution for lash ourselves to during the coming storm.

That will be a big benefit to you - Parliament can still stop Boris.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on July 29, 2019, 11:15:48 am
In many ways the UK is going to be more fucked up than the US, and way sooner.

Huh. Who would have thought.

Indeed.

For one we don't have cast-iron written constitution for lash ourselves to during the coming storm.

That will be a big benefit to you - Parliament can still stop Boris.

:lol:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 29, 2019, 11:18:31 am
In many ways the UK is going to be more fucked up than the US, and way sooner.

Huh. Who would have thought.

Indeed.

For one we don't have cast-iron written constitution for lash ourselves to during the coming storm.

That will be a big benefit to you - Parliament can still stop Boris.

:lol:

 :huh:

Parliament doesn't work like your Senate.  There are already a number of Conservatives in open opposition to the current PM.  The current government has a very slim majority.  It is certainly possible for this government to be brought down and elections held.  If that occurs the EU could extend the date.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on July 29, 2019, 11:38:08 am
In many ways the UK is going to be more fucked up than the US, and way sooner.

Huh. Who would have thought.

Indeed.

For one we don't have cast-iron written constitution for lash ourselves to during the coming storm.

That will be a big benefit to you - Parliament can still stop Boris.

:lol:

 :huh:

Parliament doesn't work like your Senate.  There are already a number of Conservatives in open opposition to the current PM.  The current government has a very slim majority.  It is certainly possible for this government to be brought down and elections held.  If that occurs the EU could extend the date.

They've had a wide opportunity to do so in the past couple years and haven't done much of anything. As May pointed out, they make it clear what they don't want but never what they do.

Barring any sort of sign from them that they are happy to broadly accept the current deal, they can't avoid a no deal brexit unless the EU grants another extension. Bringing down Johnson's gov't (which seems hard given how much dithering labour is doing) can't prevent the fact that if they reach Oct 31 without agreeing to something or withdraw the legislation to leave, no deal is the default end.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 29, 2019, 12:20:57 pm
They've had a wide opportunity to do so in the past couple years and haven't done much of anything. As May pointed out, they make it clear what they don't want but never what they do.

Barring any sort of sign from them that they are happy to broadly accept the current deal, they can't avoid a no deal brexit unless the EU grants another extension. Bringing down Johnson's gov't (which seems hard given how much dithering labour is doing) can't prevent the fact that if they reach Oct 31 without agreeing to something or withdraw the legislation to leave, no deal is the default end.

Your first sentence is why I think there is some considerable hope.  This Parliament has already voted against a no deal Brexit.  In other words this Parliament has already given a very clear indication that a no deal Brexit is not acceptable and so I am not sure why you think it cannot be stopped.  All that is required is non confidence vote to bring down this government before that happens. The other hopeful sign is that Corbyn announced late last week that Labour would campaign on the remain side in the next election - that is a good signal to the Conservative dissidents that if the government is brought down the next Parliament can fix the mess after the elections.

Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Iormlund on July 29, 2019, 12:39:10 pm
... this Parliament has already given a very clear indication that a no deal Brexit is not acceptable and so I am not sure why you think it cannot be stopped.  All that is required is non confidence vote to bring down this government before that happens.

But a no confidence vote would just trigger a general election. Who asks the EU for an extension if the interim PM doesn't want to?
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 29, 2019, 12:39:53 pm
... this Parliament has already given a very clear indication that a no deal Brexit is not acceptable and so I am not sure why you think it cannot be stopped.  All that is required is non confidence vote to bring down this government before that happens.

But a no confidence vote would just trigger a general election. Who asks the EU for an extension if the interim PM doesn't want to?

In those circumstances the EU would have to do it unilaterally.   It is really the only way out at this point.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Iormlund on July 29, 2019, 12:46:56 pm
Quite frankly, I don't think it's in anyone's interest to do so. It is quite clear that the UK has been torn asunder and a new GE is not going to change that reality.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Valmy on July 29, 2019, 12:54:51 pm
I mean does the EU really want to put up with a large bloc of MEPs embarrassing everybody with passive aggressive shenanigans for much longer? They have enough of those already.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Brain on July 29, 2019, 01:10:19 pm
The UK doesn't need an extension. Time isn't the problem.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 29, 2019, 02:15:37 pm
Quite frankly, I don't think it's in anyone's interest to do so. It is quite clear that the UK has been torn asunder and a new GE is not going to change that reality.

Depends on how the next GE goes.  If it returns the same Parliament then yes.   But I don't think anyone can predict what comes out of this turmoil.  The EU doesn't lose much by seeing what happens.  If a remain parliament is elected then the whole nightmare gets unwound.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 29, 2019, 05:54:15 pm
... this Parliament has already given a very clear indication that a no deal Brexit is not acceptable and so I am not sure why you think it cannot be stopped.  All that is required is non confidence vote to bring down this government before that happens.

But a no confidence vote would just trigger a general election. Who asks the EU for an extension if the interim PM doesn't want to?

There have been talks of activating the Queen :ph34r:
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Zanza on July 29, 2019, 10:16:52 pm
In those circumstances the EU would have to do it unilaterally.   It is really the only way out at this point.
The EU cannot do that. It states clearly in Article 50 TEU that the leaving member must agree. And while Britain's constitution may be flexible, the EU operates within the boundaries if its own constitutional treaties.

Quote
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 30, 2019, 12:04:30 am
In those circumstances the EU would have to do it unilaterally.   It is really the only way out at this point.
The EU cannot do that. It states clearly in Article 50 TEU that the leaving member must agree. And while Britain's constitution may be flexible, the EU operates within the boundaries if its own constitutional treaties.

Quote
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Then if the government falls and a writ is dropped for a new election there is an interesting constitutional question regarding who can speak for the UK to give that consent. 
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: The Minsky Moment on July 30, 2019, 10:29:29 am
There have been talks of activating the Queen :ph34r:

Need a 5 OPS card for that.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: dps on July 30, 2019, 10:45:50 am
If a remain parliament is elected then the whole nightmare gets unwound.

How is that going to happen?  Aren't the Liberal Democrats the only solidly "remain" party?  I can't see them getting a majority.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: garbon on July 30, 2019, 11:35:29 am
If a remain parliament is elected then the whole nightmare gets unwound.

How is that going to happen?  Aren't the Liberal Democrats the only solidly "remain" party?  I can't see them getting a majority.

Theoretically Labour will become a remain party at their party conference.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: PJL on July 30, 2019, 12:31:12 pm
In those circumstances the EU would have to do it unilaterally.   It is really the only way out at this point.
The EU cannot do that. It states clearly in Article 50 TEU that the leaving member must agree. And while Britain's constitution may be flexible, the EU operates within the boundaries if its own constitutional treaties.

Quote
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Then if the government falls and a writ is dropped for a new election there is an interesting constitutional question regarding who can speak for the UK to give that consent.

Not really, in that case, it would always be the incumbent. Only when a new PM go to the Queen is there is a new government/  A more interesting scenario is if the VONC succeeds but there is no motion to a call a general election. In which case it goes to the opposition leader, then the leader of the next biggest party, etc to try and form a government, with a 14 day limit on trying to form a government. Then you get a general election called. But even then, it's still the incumbent that is the government.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: crazy canuck on July 30, 2019, 12:34:14 pm
If a remain parliament is elected then the whole nightmare gets unwound.

How is that going to happen?  Aren't the Liberal Democrats the only solidly "remain" party?  I can't see them getting a majority.

Corbyn stated late last week that Labour would campaign to remain.  As discussed above, even he has realized his dithering has been harmful to his party.  If the government falls it will be because of its Brexit strategy.  My resigned rather than face a vote of non confidence.  Boris does not have much time either.
Title: Re: Prime Minister BoJo It Is.
Post by: Tyr on July 30, 2019, 02:46:08 pm
Everyone always forgets SNP and Plaid.
Not enough alone but they do hand a fair number of seats to a potential pro remain minority government