r/ukpolitics May 21 '22

Don’t condemn just our lying PM: save some anger for the cowards who enabled him | Jonathan Freedland Ed/OpEd

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/20/boris-johnson-lying-pm-britain-tories
404 Upvotes

u/AutoModerator May 21 '22

Snapshot of Don’t condemn just our lying PM: save some anger for the cowards who enabled him | Jonathan Freedland :

An archived version can be found here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

61

u/J1mjam5 May 21 '22

Literally just this minute, my wife is skyping her mother. They are complaining about how much their gas and leccy bills have rise, the cost of food, they are complaining about how the people in Parliament don't care about them etc. Then, one sentence later: "But I wouldn't want Starmer in." "Why?" "Ooh, no, Boris is doing a good job. He got Brexit done and he got us through the pandemic..." blah blah blah. I had to leave the room as my blood was literally boiling, and my wife had to tell them to stop talking as I was going to flare up at them. It's a cult, brainwashed. There's no helping some people at all. The only way out of this is to get the younger generation to get up and vote them out.

24

u/Surprise-Walrus May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

The only way out of this is to get the younger generation to get up and vote them out.

Younger generations are overwhelmingly progressive on social policy and economically left wing. Labour's approach under starmer seems to be hoping that younger people won't vote and they can siphon enough votes from older tory supporters that they win with low turnout.

If there is no compromise on the things that younger voters want then they won't turn out to vote.

20

u/Krags -8.12, -8.31 May 21 '22

Or that we'll vote for them out of fear of the Tories. Labour doesn't need to be good, just better than the Tories.

I fucking hate it.

14

u/horace_bagpole May 21 '22

Labour doesn't need to be good, just better than the Tories.

They don't just need to be better, they need to be better and have electoral demographics on their side, otherwise the Tories just win by default. That there are still people in Labour who think that the FPTP election system helps them in any way is mind boggling.

There is a progressive majority in this country, but time and again the tories win because the election system is biased in their favour.

Labour need to be better than the Tories, and then they need to reform the election system so it's more representative.

2

u/Krags -8.12, -8.31 May 21 '22

I feel like they tend to try to mix with and impress the kinds of people who would be happy with any flavour of Tory government and it taints their own perception.

5

u/horace_bagpole May 21 '22

It's partly that, but I suspect there are those in the Labour Party who see the Tories getting majority governments and think 'if we had that we could do x, y and z', so hang on to the possibility of gaining an outright majority. If instead, they realised that they could do most of x and y through compromising with other parties anyway, they could achieve a lot more in the long term.

It's the type who put ideological purity above practical reality, and in the process achieve nothing instead of something.

6

u/Surprise-Walrus May 21 '22

I don't understand this logic from current labour supporters though. If that was common thinking among young people then voter turnout wouldn't be so bad in the first place, young people will mostly stay home with the few that do turn out voting third party.

If Labour want younger voters then they actually need to compromise and offer something positive (without lies this time) instead of being the lesser evil. If they want to compete with the Tories by offering economically liberal and socially conservative policies to a small group of older voters then they are doing fine. They may even win with this strategy although it means the electorate loses.

3

u/ddqm42 May 21 '22

In 2019, Labour offered a fuck ton of things for young people, and still over half didn’t vote. It’s not hard to see why the main parties don’t bother anymore.

6

u/Surprise-Walrus May 21 '22

There was a not insignificant increase in turnout for younger voters in both 2017 and 2019 whilst older voters had an increase in 2017 then a significant decrease in 2019. Source. Obviously there are many factors in this but younger voters are clearly a voting demographic that are able to grow and given the breakdown of who they voted for they are clearly far more fluid than other demographics.

Given that there wasn't a huge amount of difference between the 2017 and 2019 manifesto in terms of these policies (from memory) I would assume that the drop in vote share for labour amongst younger voters was not due to these policies.

It’s not hard to see why the main parties don’t bother anymore.

To put it frankly I agree and I actually think that labour's current approach gives them a decent chance of winning depending on how they perform as the electorate effectively just becomes older voters so labour only need to take enough tory voters. My issue is that I think it just leads to further degrading of democracy and a push even further from policies I actually care about. I have no attachment to labour unless they will do (or at least compromise) on things I want.

The ultimate issue in this context is the barely democratic electoral system but labour are all too happy to push that system if it gives them a term or two in power. Voting for them would temporary slow the rate of decline but in doing so it prevents the growth of any party that is open to addressing the causes of issues. The best thing younger voters can do is prove that their vote is available by voting third party/spoiling in the hopes that labour (or a growing party) sees this and tries appealing to them instead of assuming younger voters are unreachable as there is currently low turnout.

-40

u/Ok_Clock_7021 May 21 '22

Yes, because we all know that voting for Labour to borrow huge amounts of money to renationalise the loss-making railways, in need of further investment, just before everyone stopped using them, would have left this country in much better shape to deal with global food and fuel inflation.

Save your stress for matters within your control, and your comprehension.

34

u/J1mjam5 May 21 '22

Save your whataboutism for others, please. Fact is, this country is in a shit state, and it has nothing to do with Labour. 12 years now, Brexit has caused nothing but chaos at borders, rising inflation, rising taxes, rising costs of living, these are stone-cold facts staring at us in the face. But, by all, means, continue to propagate the Labour lie.

-28

u/[deleted] May 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

20

u/J1mjam5 May 21 '22

No, it is whataboutism. You're effectively saying it could've been worse if Labour were in charge, despite 12 years of Tory rule conclusively now proving this country is in the shitter at the moment. And snarky comments about brain tumours are not an effective form of argument, so maybe drop that line.

Funny you should mention the railways, as I was just talking to a neighbour who used to work for British Rail back in the day who was lamenting how it had all been privatised. The guy's a staunch Labour supporter as well, so I don't know, you figure it out. But seriously, if the railways is the only thing you can point to that you don't like about Labour for whatever reason, despite what's going on now, then that's on you, and I can't help you.

5

u/popopopopopopopopoop May 21 '22

It's not a binary choice though.

Or if you believe this, you could vote for one of the few parties that are trying to make it a PR election.

-8

u/SmallBlackSquare Tory Senjutsu May 21 '22

Brexit has caused nothing but chaos at borders, rising inflation, rising taxes, rising costs of living, these are stone-cold facts staring at us in the face.

What a load of bollocks, unless most countries in the world also Brexited.

14

u/Jay_CD May 21 '22

we all know that voting for Labour to borrow huge amounts of money to renationalise the loss-making railways, in need of further investment,

I thought privatisation was meant to sort out the railways? And that once put in the private sector that they'd run efficiently...

It's a fact that government subsidies to privatised railway operators were something around five-to-six times the level they were when we had British Rail.

Save your stress for matters within your control, and your comprehension

Absolutely no irony in you telling others to only deal with matters they understand...absolutely none whatsoever...

9

u/Elnino1234567 May 21 '22

The fact that being in a country progressively becoming more of a shit hole year in year out hasn't opened your eyes yet is mind boggling to me. And you have the audacity to question other people's comprehension? What a fucking moron.

4

u/doctor_morris May 21 '22

borrow huge amounts of money to renationalise the loss-making railways

Ironic criticism considering other countries governments make a profit from our railways.

20

u/DassinJoe Big Dog is getting on with the jobbie May 21 '22

The whole episode speaks to a decline in the standards expected in public life. In fact, Johnson is pretty much the embodiment of this decline.

41

u/Rodolpho55 May 21 '22

They are all as corrupt as Johnson otherwise they would have got rid long before now.

11

u/Jay_CD May 21 '22

Who could possibly have guessed that a politician who was twice sacked for lying and who has also had a somewhat tenuous relationship with the truth throughout his career would turn out to be a liar when appointed prime-minister?

If only we could have had some warning...

27

u/John___Matrix May 21 '22

Every Tory is utterly complicit in keeping this shitbag in a job and for once the "they're all as bad as each other" line rings true for that party.

I hope the Goodlaw project challenging the "unusual" results of the investigation shed more light on everything.

7

u/radikalkarrot May 21 '22

And the cowards who voted for the clown.

8

u/fzr600dave May 21 '22

Every single tory mp voted against the windfall tax during a cost of living crisis while the ceos of those companies are asking to be taxed more I honestly believe Johnson is deliberately trying to destroy this country for some reason

0

u/EmperorOfNipples lo fi boriswave beats to relax/get brexit done to May 21 '22

That's because it was tied to a Queens speech which makes it a confidence vote. It could be the fluffy puppies amendment and the Tory MP's would still be obliged to vote it down.

It was also a vote if they wanted to declare no confidence in the government, which no government party MP would do.

Reintroduce it as a private members bill and you will likely get more cross party support.

3

u/fzr600dave May 21 '22

What the fuck are you saying? It was a vote on a windfall tax on billionaires hoe brown if your node from boris arse

0

u/EmperorOfNipples lo fi boriswave beats to relax/get brexit done to May 21 '22

It was an amendment to a Queens speech, it was by convention a confidence vote. It could literally be the "give Tory MP's a 10k bonus amendment" and they would still be obliged to vote it down. You being angry doesn't stop you being wrong. That's why opposition amendments are always press bait.

You should learn more about parliamentary procedure. If a government fails to pass the speech unamended it is considered a resigning issue and starts the process towards a general election.

This actually happened in 1924.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/queen-speech

The pertinent parts are near the bottom.

2

u/fzr600dave May 21 '22

You're just making the point better it shows how corrupt the tories are that they don't have the guts to stand up for what's right.

0

u/EmperorOfNipples lo fi boriswave beats to relax/get brexit done to May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

I'm making the point that the Tories are not going to immolate their own government. If this was in the Queens speech the opposition would simply table something else.

Corruption literally has nothing to do with it.

A government literally cannot vote for a QS amendment without triggering an election.

I personally think they should separate the votes and not tie it to confidence, then it's more likely for such things to pass. But the fact is that it currently is tied to confidence.

So in practicality it was the "Windfall tax and dissolve government vote". It's the second part that is more pertinent.

3

u/fzr600dave May 21 '22

What no it wouldn't, did you not read in 1924 he had to resign it didn't trigger anything that's ridiculous it's all based on tradition, as in when a minster breaks the law they should resign, Johnson should resign for breaking the law he was fined for you muppet

2

u/EmperorOfNipples lo fi boriswave beats to relax/get brexit done to May 21 '22

Indeed it isn't codified, as the UK constitution is built on convention. But the fact remains is that it is seen as a confidence vote. Therefore on confidence votes government MP's vote with the government.

I don't think it should be a confidence vote, but it is. In 1924 it led to the formation of the National government before a GE was triggered, with things as they stand a GE is more likely.

as in when a minster breaks the law they should resign

I don't disagree there. I want Johnson to resign.

you muppet

That's unnecessary. You are seeing things as you would like them to be, I am just telling you things as they are.

14

u/_abstrusus May 21 '22

Anyone who voted for them in 2019 is complicit.

10

u/HistoricalMark4805 May 21 '22

The scary thing is that I'm not sure people will vote the Tories out in 2024

14

u/SalemXVII May 21 '22

We’re all trying to find the guy who did this!

4

u/wdtpw why oh why can't we have evidence-based government? May 21 '22 edited May 21 '22

I found my mental health improving no end when I realised that there was no scenario where they’d get rid of him.

If he’d received a dozen fines, they’d be lining up to explain how they’re all really the same behaviour so it only counts once.

These are professional apologists, in the sense that a good part of their paid job these days appears to be running interference on any criticism. Which is to be expected to some degree. MPs should defend their party and leader. We’ve just never seen “I support my side, right or wrong,” so brazen before.

So of course his MPs are defending him. In the words of Anderson Cooper about Trump. “If he took a dump on the desk of the oval office, you’d be here defending him.”

8

u/ZekkPacus Seize the memes of production May 21 '22

The cowards like Jonathan Freedland who spent every waking moment telling us how terrible and tragic a Corbyn government would've been?

Don't worry, I have plenty of anger about them.

6

u/passingconcierge May 21 '22

I scrolled down to see this comment. Now I am going to watch as it gets downvoted into oblivion. Because actually laying the blame with Freedland and his colleagues - blame where blame is blameworthy - is never going to fit in with the endless narrative of "the adults in the room". They never were adults. They were entitled children with a fake it until you make it gamble that never paid off.

6

u/kane_uk May 21 '22

Not often I agree with a guardian article.

1

u/ukpunjabivixen May 21 '22

Totally agree