Johnson tried to prorogue Parliament for an unprecedented long period of time for no good reason and when this was undone by the Supreme Court, accused the court of overreach. He’s since made noises about putting the judiciary on notice for future ‘interference’.
So that’s two branches of government he’s shown no respect for. Count his lying to the Queen about prorogation and you’ve got the hat-trick.
So I’m not sure how you can say Johnson hasn’t ‘done at all’.
Liberals just accuse everybody in politics who isn’t one of them of being racist, sexist, homophobic and all the rest. They do it as a reflex, usually without serious evidence and without being willing to engage in a serious discussion about it. The typical voter has caught on to the fact that 90% of such accusations are false and now most people just automatically dismiss that kind of crap. That’s probably one reason why the media’s attacks on Boris Johnson failed so completely. Indeed, liberals’ constant labeling of everyone a racist may have hurt them: see comments by Labour MP Lisa Nandy here.
One could go through every supposedly racist, sexist, etc… thing Johnson said that was mentioned in those articles, but what’s the point? The articles are clearly dishonest. The first mentions Johnson “Comparing Muslim women to ‘letterboxes’”. Johnson said that women wearing Burqas look like letterboxes. The enormous majority of Muslim women in Britain and elsewhere don’t wear Burqas, so it’s a lie to say that he made the comment about Muslim women generally. More importantly, what Johnson was saying was to stand up for the rights of Muslim women to be free from a symbol of misogyny and fundamentalism. Why would anyone, and most particularly any liberal, disagree with that?
This is a typical example: media accuses politician of making being racist, but the claim is outright false and what he said is fully defensible.
Then we’re supposed to be outraged that in the wake of the bombings by Islamic terrorists, he said things like "“Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers.” Well, is that statement untrue? Johnson’s entire column can be found here. Almost immediately after that, Johnson wrote this:
It is time that we started to insist that the Muslim Council of Great Britain, and all the preachers in all the mosques, extremist or moderate, began to acculturate themselves more closely to what we think of as British values. We can’t force it on them, but we should begin to demand change in a way that is both friendly and outspoken, and by way of a first gesture the entire Muslim clergy might announce, loud and clear, for the benefit of all Bradford-born chipshop boys, that there is no eternal blessedness for the suicide bombers, there are no 72 virgins, and that the whole thing is a con and a fraud upon impressionable minds.
So his position was in no way against all Muslims. He was only pointing out that when large numbers of Muslims are turning to terrorism, it’s reasonable to expect that all Muslim leaders in Britain speak out against terrorism. Can any rational person disagree or think that is racist?
We’re also supposed to be outraged that he used the word “piccaninnies”. But he is no way intended that as an attack against black people; he was using to satirize a racist position supposedly held by someone else.
etc… Most voters just know that if they investigated every instance, they’d find that the media is serving them a long string of lies, half-truths, and distortions to portray Johnson as a racist. Furthers, Brits understand the role of the tabloid press, which often involves being a bit rough and uncouth while giving voice to viewpoints that aren’t allowed in more mainstream sources, and that Johnson’s writing and speaking from his journalism career existed in that environment. Truthfully the language he used in the 90’s was completely normal for the tabloids at that time.
Women are perfectly capable of voting for fascists. Putin has the women’s vote locked up. We feel pretty squicky about Trump, obviously, because he’s an obese geriatric who, rumour has it, still likes to have s… ew, pass the brain bleach. But a fascist with at least medium personal grooming and competence standards isn’t going to have that problem.
Plenty of fascists in non-white countries too. If the right wants that demographic they just need to tune their dog-whistles to a slightly different frequency
…this is absolutely 100% incorrect. “Liberals” (however you are defining them) in general do not do this. Most liberals do not do this.
I’m here and ready to engage in a serious discussion about it if you like. Are you prepared to have a discussion about it? Or did you just want to get this off your chest?
Cite?
Which media attacks are you talking about?
Well we can’t see those comments because you’ve linked to a “live update” page. Can you be a bit more specific?
Can you cite this alleged dishonest articles?
And saying that “women wearing Burgas look like letterboxes” is a disgusting, horrible slur. Its insulting, its bigoted, and he should apologise.
It doesn’t fucking matter if the majority of Muslim women in Britain don’t wear Burqas. He targeted women that do. Do they not matter to you?
Because many of the women in the UK who wear Burqas do so because they choose too. It is misogynistic to tell a woman what she can and she can’t wear and if she chooses, of her own free will to wear a Burqa, who are you to say that what she is doing is wrong? How could any freedom-of-speech fundamentalist disagree with that?
There was nothing false about the claims about Boris. His comments about letterboxes were bigoted and misogynistic.
I’m more scared of White Evangelical Christians than I am of Muslims or what is being preached about in Mosques. This fucking terrifies me.
Large numbers of white Americans are picking up guns and terrorising American communities. When you hold White Christian leaders to the exact same standard that you hold the Muslim community I may consider entertaining what you’ve got to say here. Is that a thing you are going to do?
I’m not expecting you to be outraged by anything. Your defense of the indefensible says it all.
If Blair's so good at running the Congo, let him stay there?
“Satirize a racist position supposedly held by someone else?” Are you fucking kidding me? The context is there in the original article, plain as day. There was no satirical intent. There was no “somebody else.”
If most voters did investigate every instance they would discover that Boris Johnson was a serial liar, a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, a fantasist, completely incompetent at his job, a bully, and nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.
LOL.
The role of the tabloid press is to make money. What you call rough and uncouth I call disgustingand sickening. And the voices they amplify are all over the mainstream press, this isn’t a secret.
The Telegraph article wasn’t written in the 90’s and the letterbox comment was made last year. What on earth are you talking about?
Disagree. He’s in fact made it clear why he wanted to do it when he complained to an interviewer that “some people in this government don’t want to see Brexit done” in response to the supreme court smacking down the prorogation.
Meaning he wanted parliament out of the picture while unilaterally making his no deal moves. It’s a very good reason. And by that I mean it’s a dangerously bad and antidemocratic reason.
The way forward is to address the voter’s concerns. If immigration levels are cut to a level most people are comfortable with than nativism will melt away. Economic insecurity is just the permanent state of mankind so nothing to do about that.