Who agrees with Boris?

[reohn2]

... I often wonder about the Many people voted for him”. My parents always vote Conservative yet it would be difficult to find any issues where they agree with their Conservative MP. They vote Conservative and not for the individual standing in the safe seat. If there were two Conservative Party candidates standing then very unlikely the current person would get their vote.

i th8nk that in some consituencies it is the party that gets the Vote rathe than the individual standing. Difficult to determine if it is Botis attracting peoples’ vote or the Conservative Party or historical allegiance.

A safe seat is, by definition, safe or it is most of the time. On that basis, just about any candidate selected by the party which has traditionally held the seat will be returned but there's much more to it than that. Understandably, safe seats are coveted and being selected is the hard part. This is where Johnson prospers because he has the flair for appealing to the type of safe Tory on the selection committees of safe Tory seats. He's also good at wowing people at constituency events, telling them what they want to hear in a patrician tone. He also seems to have the cunning to avoid an open clash between constituency and national issues. eg He's been outspoken in his opposition to expansion at Heathrow, but when the Cabinet reached the opposite decision he conveniently managed to be absent, rather than getting into a position where he had to support Cabinet policy or resign his post as Foregn Secretary.

Commonly termed as a weasel,there's a quite a few about.....

[reohn2]

Full PR then?

Yep.
Sounds good to me.

Like the elections for Brussels then!!

I am all in favour of PR.
IMV it would help our domestic policy making a great deal

It'd be one step nearer to democracy

[Mick F]

Yes it would.
People seem to vote for the person at by-elections, but for the party at a general election.
If we took the parties out of the mix and had a proper election for the person to represent you, we may get somewhere.

First past the post too simplistic a method IMHO.
(Don't mention Brexit, there's another thread for that! )

[PDQ Mobile]

First past the post too simplistic a method IMHO.
(Don't mention Brexit, there's another thread for that! )

Did someone mention it?

[thirdcrank]

I don't think it's a secret that politicians choose their tactics to suit the electoral system in use. Johnson is good at that.

[JohnW]

...................He .... seems to have the cunning..............

Yup - that seems to be about it.

[Cyril Haearn]

Boris loves cycling
I agree with that

[JohnW]

Boris loves cycling
I agree with that

There's more than one side to everyone - Hitler was kind to dogs...........

[pwa]

Anyone here actually read the article, rather than just take in the "letter box" and "bank robber" phrases? Boris actually claimed that his article didn't call for a complete ban of the burka.

My own first reaction on hearing news of his comments was laughter. He used phrases that I myself would not have done, because I think subtle persuasion is a better way of getting people to uncover their faces, but I did find it funny anyway. On the plus side if this gets people discussing face covering it may turn out to be a good thing. Face covering in public is a problem. Humans communicate largely with their faces and there is something deeply wrong about hiding your face from others in a space you share. I feel insulted that others choose to do it on our streets. I don't mind other signs of religious affiliation, so it is not an anti-Islam thing, it is an anti-face covering thing.

[JohnW]

Anyone here actually read the article, rather than just take in the "letter box" and "bank robber" phrases? Boris actually claimed that his article didn't call for a complete ban of the burka.

My own first reaction on hearing news of his comments was laughter. He used phrases that I myself would not have done, because I think subtle persuasion is a better way of getting people to uncover their faces, but I did find it funny anyway. On the plus side if this gets people discussing face covering it may turn out to be a good thing. Face covering in public is a problem. Humans communicate largely with their faces and there is something deeply wrong about hiding your face from others in a space you share. I feel insulted that others choose to do it on our streets. I don't mind other signs of religious affiliation, so it is not an anti-Islam thing, it is an anti-face covering thing.

+1 to that.

[reohn2]

Anyone here actually read the article, rather than just take in the "letter box" and "bank robber" phrases? Boris actually claimed that his article didn't call for a complete ban of the burka.

My own first reaction on hearing news of his comments was laughter. He used phrases that I myself would not have done, because I think subtle persuasion is a better way of getting people to uncover their faces, but I did find it funny anyway. On the plus side if this gets people discussing face covering it may turn out to be a good thing. Face covering in public is a problem. Humans communicate largely with their faces and there is something deeply wrong about hiding your face from others in a space you share. I feel insulted that others choose to do it on our streets. I don't mind other signs of religious affiliation, so it is not an anti-Islam thing, it is an anti-face covering thing.

Boris was trying to wrap up what he thinks in the form of humour aimed at the lowest common denominator,"I was only joking".
In the same way Clarkson and a few other ex public schoolboys think they can get away with it.
They know the people who's ears their comments fall on,they know the effect those comments will have on those people,and will be seized upon and remembered,whilst they absolve themselves by the get out clause of "I was only joking" and then he follows it up by claiming he doesn't think the burka should be banned.
No not at all,just poked fun at.

That's the truth of the matter!

He's a creep,a clever one granted but a creep nevertheless,just like Clarkson.

FWIW,just like a face full of metal and tattoos and shaved head and agressive looking dress that frightens old ladies shouldn't be banned,I don't think the burka should be banned.
I do think in some circumstances ie; one to one communication,especially on a formal basis,people wearing a burka or niqab should uncover their face.
But I wouldn't,from position of authority and in a national newspaper,poke fun at the people who wear the burka or niqab!

[PDQ Mobile]

Anyone here actually read the article, rather than just take in the "letter box" and "bank robber" phrases?

One did not need to; it was quoted (almost?) in it's entirety by the BBC on PM one day last week.

Make of that what you will.

[pwa]

I see the burka as a way of rejecting wider society, rejecting tendencies towards integration, entrenching separation. It is not required by all Islam. I grew up in Bolton with plenty of Islamic women around and the burka is something I don't remember seeing. I know Islamic women who don't wear it. Being opposed to face covering does not make you anti-Islamic, though obviously someone who is anti-Islamic can use it as ammunition.

Think what you like about BJ and his choice of words, but unease with face covering is much wider than BJ supporters and the extreme right. And it is a natural unease rooted in the fact that we use people's faces to read their intentions. Hide you face and you become sinister, unwelcoming and closed to contact. It belongs in the past.

[bovlomov]

Anyone here actually read the article, rather than just take in the "letter box" and "bank robber" phrases? Boris actually claimed that his article didn't call for a complete ban of the burka.

I haven't heard any serious criticism of the article that didn't make that clear.

Johnson was making a basically liberal argument. Nothing he said was new or interesting - it rarely is - but he knowingly threw in a couple of gratuitous insults to appeal to the very people who are now defending him, and who mostly have missed the liberal argument. That was deliberate, and follows the model that his new friend Steve Bannon has outlined.

Johnson is a liar and a shameless opportunist. Whatever he says, good, bad or indifferent is best ignored. Those column inches should have been used to broadcast the thoughts of someone who cared about the subject.

As a recent Foreign Secretary, Johnson should know that words are powerful in the hands of politicians. If, as I have read, attacks on Muslim women are up this week, it is his fault.

On the plus side if this gets people discussing face covering it may turn out to be a good thing.

Good old Boris is raising a subject that other dare not! But, actually, it is a subject that is widely discussed by intelligent and responsible people. Boris hasn't added a thing to the debate.

Face covering in public is a problem. Humans communicate largely with their faces and there is something deeply wrong about hiding your face from others in a space you share. I feel insulted that others choose to do it on our streets. I don't mind other signs of religious affiliation, so it is not an anti-Islam thing, it is an anti-face covering thing.

Many of Johnson's defenders are also insulted by covered faces, but they didn't need Johnson's permission to say so.

In short. Think what you like, but if you choose to stand with Johnson you might stink a bit like him.

[pwa]

Anyone here actually read the article, rather than just take in the "letter box" and "bank robber" phrases? Boris actually claimed that his article didn't call for a complete ban of the burka.

I haven't heard any serious criticism of the article that didn't make that clear.

Johnson was making a basically liberal argument. Nothing he said was new or interesting - it rarely is - but he knowingly threw in a couple of gratuitous insults to appeal to the very people who are now defending him, and who mostly have missed the liberal argument. That was deliberate, and follows the model that his new friend Steve Bannon has outlined.

Johnson is a liar and a shameless opportunist. Whatever he says, good, bad or indifferent is best ignored. Those column inches should have been used to broadcast the thoughts of someone who cared about the subject.

As a recent Foreign Secretary, Johnson should know that words are powerful in the hands of politicians. If, as I have read, attacks on Muslim women are up this week, it is his fault.

On the plus side if this gets people discussing face covering it may turn out to be a good thing.

Good old Boris is raising a subject that other dare not! But, actually, it is a subject that is widely discussed by intelligent and responsible people. Boris hasn't added a thing to the debate.

Face covering in public is a problem. Humans communicate largely with their faces and there is something deeply wrong about hiding your face from others in a space you share. I feel insulted that others choose to do it on our streets. I don't mind other signs of religious affiliation, so it is not an anti-Islam thing, it is an anti-face covering thing.

Many of Johnson's defenders are also insulted by covered faces, but they didn't need Johnson's permission to say so.

In short. Think what you like, but if you choose to stand with Johnson you might stink a bit like him.

I didn't read the article, but if he said that he does not favour a complete ban on the burka I agree with that. I also agree that face covering on UK streets is a problem. So I have to say that yes, I agree with him on those points. I just found his jibes a bit fruity. I don't stand with BJ on everything, but if he says something that I happen to agree with I will say so.

I believe we need to discourage burka wearing but preferably without the heavy handed approach of the French and the Danes.