Skip to main content

Boris the flop

So, here is a political party going to the country saying they will 'get Brexit done' after three years of failing to get anything done at all.

Just three years ago they said there wasn't a 'money tree'.  Now they have miraculously found one, and are in a bidding war with Labour on spending. "Anything you can do, we can do better!"

Boris doesn't understand his own Brexit deal and comes up trumps in saying that Northern Ireland has got a good one because they will remain in the single market and have free movement.  If it is so good, then why give it up for the rest of the UK?

This all took place with a rambling speech in Northern Ireland that made no sense either to those listening or to Boris Johnson, who looked like a stand-up whose jokes were falling flat.  It didn't help appearances to have a glass in his hand.  Perhaps it was water, or not.

 So far, the Tory campaign launch seems to have been a flop.  Rees-Mogg talked about what he would have done with 'common sense' if he had been in the Grenfell fire.  He hasn't been seen since.

They doctored a video of Sir Keir Starmer and then denied they had done so.  It is this kind of utter incompetence and lack of empathy that has not delivered on Brexit or anything else.

Meanwhile, Corbyn had the best lines and the best jokes, particularly the one about not knowing any billionaires.  Boris, on the other hand, knows a few - a fat lot of good it is doing him.

So, the score after the first week: Corbyn 3: Johnson 0.   The Tories lost on penalties and own goals.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As