But he does make....things.
And cardboard buses.
But he does make....things.
And cardboard buses.
He had fuck all to do with the administration of London and was nothing more than a fucking bit of tinsel on the top of Nelson's column. And when he insisted on using London as a vehicle for his ridiculous buffoonery and vaunting ego he fucked up every time whether it was the Routemaster folly or the stupid flower bridge, both failures and cost millions.
His tenuous occupation of the role of Mayor, mostly titular, was fucking nondescript otherwise, and had no legacy other than debt.
He's a bombastic lazy cvunt full of vacuous soundbites and bumfluffery rhetoric but with a nasty temper and a puerile need to be loved.
He's a fuckup, and he'll take Britain with him because gormless munters like you fall for his bullshit and do what all British lower class wankers do when faced with a bit of posh toffery, touch their forelocks, get on their knees and suck cock.
I met Prince Andrew and Fergie (and a very small Beatrice and Eugenie + 2 burly bodyguards) once while I was wandering alone with my backpack on the Balmoral Estate.
I put on a polite neutral smile and lowered my head slightly in deference and mumbled a quiet 'hello' as I walked past.
This display of grovelling subservient obsequiousness paid dividends half an hour later as Andrew stopped his Range Rover as he was driving past me on a forest track and gave me directions to Lochnagar using my O.S. 1:50000 map.
And Fergie (driving a second range rover) gave me a big grin (I think she was laughing at my stunned-mullet reaction to having just got directions from her husband) and waved to me as she drove past.
I know royals like to wave from their cars at the snivelling subjects but to get a private one-on-one wave still feels like an honour.
Fergie could get some (plenty, as much as she could take without causing her a life threatening orgasmic experience...) of Mr Bettyboo's manjuice loving...
Regarding BJ: yes please, Fergie; twice on Sundays.
Regarding BoJo: some typical boring cliches from the cheap seats... It was nice to see a PM attempt to bring a positive tone to the den of moaning rats that is PM's questions time.
Cycling should be banned!!!
Winston Churchill Would Despise Boris Johnson
Britain’s new leader has a sadly exaggerated sense of the importance his country will have after Brexit.
By Ian Buruma
Mr. Buruma is a writer and a professor at Bard College.
July 27, 2019
Winston Churchill’s ghost still hovers over Washington and London. American presidents have often modeled themselves after the British wartime leader, especially in times of conflict.
George W. Bush was a great admirer. And so in the buildup to the Iraq war, Prime Minister Tony Blair lent him a bust of Churchill, while another one, which had been in the White House for several decades, was being repaired. When President Barack Obama returned the bust after the old one was fixed — as had been agreed before Mr. Obama came to the White House — he was accused by a British politician of doing so out of spite, because of his “ancestral dislike of the British Empire, of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender.”
That politician was Boris Johnson, who became prime minister of Britain on Wednesday. He once wrote a fawning biography of Churchill and did nothing to discourage the impression that he identified with the great man: the upper-class mannerisms, the jokes, the love of grandeur and the appeal, post-Brexit, to the myth of wartime Britain standing alone against the Nazi menace, the much-vaunted “Dunkirk spirit.”
President Trump, who placed a Churchill bust in the Oval Office with great fanfare, has no upper-class mannerisms or, indeed, manners at all. But he, too, is an admirer of Churchill, and of Mr. Johnson, whom he called, somewhat oddly, the “Britain Trump.” Some supporters of Mr. Johnson see this as a sign that the special Anglo-American relationship will revive in all its old glory. If so, this relationship will stand for everything Churchill — and especially his great wartime ally Franklin D. Roosevelt — despised.
Churchill was indeed a defender of empire and held some serious racial prejudices, especially against Indians, whom he detested. But he was also an internationalist. Far from wanting Britain to go it alone during the evacuation of Allied troops from Dunkirk in the spring of 1940, he even entertained the idea that Britain and France should merge as one nation to fight Hitler.
The idea of Britain’s special relationship with the United States was also very much Churchill’s. His mother was American, so there were sentimental reasons. And Churchill was a great believer in the greatness of the “English-speaking peoples.” But the relationship was born out of dire necessity. Churchill knew that Britain would not be able to defeat Nazi Germany without active help from the United States.
Roosevelt, who was no friend of British imperialism, was well aware of the danger posed to the United States by a Europe dominated by the Third Reich. But in 1940, most Americans were not at all keen to go to war to help Britain. The most fervent opposition came from right-wing isolationists, and some of them, such as the aviator Charles Lindbergh, had more than a sneaking sympathy for the Nazis. Their slogan, revived by the Trump campaign in 2016, was “America First.”
At the end of 1941, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war against the United States silenced the America Firsters. Churchill and Roosevelt drew up the Atlantic Charter, envisioning the world after Hitler’s defeat. It was marked by deeply internationalist ideas: cooperation between countries, free trade and political freedom for all. The United Nations, now much disdained by the Trump administration, was born from this charter.
After the war was won, Churchill gave a famous speech in Zurich, in which he called for the creation of a United States of Europe. He believed that only full European integration would stave off another devastating war. Quite where Britain fit into this grand European design was left a little vague. Churchill thought that Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union should at least be sympathetic patrons of a united Europe. Many members of his generation had a hard time seeing Britain as just another European country, on a par with France or Italy. Among the 52 percent of Britons who voted for Brexit, there are plenty who find this difficult still.
The new British prime minister, Mr. Johnson, sometimes gives the impression that he feels nostalgic for the glory days of British imperialism. When he visited Myanmar as foreign secretary in September 2017, he startled his hosts, as well as the British ambassador, by reciting Rudyard Kipling’s patronizing poem “Road to Mandalay” in Shwedagon Pagoda, one of the country’s main Buddhist sites.
But even the most radical Brexiteers realize that those days are over. Some, perhaps including Mr. Johnson, see a future Britain as a larger version of Singapore, a kind of low-tax and low-regulation free port. Others dream that it will become a global power again once it is released from what they see as the chains of Brussels. Yet others believe that a revived special relationship with the United States is the gateway to national greatness.
The special relationship appeals to another type of nostalgia: kinship with the largest nation of English-speaking peoples, which many older, mostly white, Britons find more congenial than shared arrangements with foreigners on the Continent who eat garlic and speak in strange tongues.
Mr. Johnson has pushed all these buttons. But the main thing most Brexiteers have in common is an obsession with national sovereignty, “taking back control” and keeping foreigners out — a yearning for that old British idea: splendid isolation.
Hence the fetish of the Dunkirk spirit, used to great effect in the Brexit campaign. Hence, too, Mr. Johnson’s rhetoric revolving around the fantasy of wartime derring-do.
When he promises that Britain will leave the European Union by Halloween, “do or die,” he is mimicking Churchill’s bulldog defiance of the Nazi foe. Like Trump, he has an exaggerated belief in national power and in his own country first, unfettered by international institutions or cooperative arrangements, even though many of those were set up by the American and British governments in the wake of World War II.
The United States can afford to indulge in bashing international norms, at least for a while, because it is a huge country, with a powerful domestic economy, unparalleled military strength and great natural resources. Britain has none of these things. The idea that Britain, acting alone, can exact favorable terms from much larger powers such as China, Europe or, indeed, the United States, is a delusion. If it leaves the European Union, Britain will become a middling provincial country, whose fortunes will be subject to the whims of others. Trump probably won’t care. Churchill would have been horrified.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/o...mp-brexit.html
Vive Boris !!!
The Brexit English just want to suck Septic cock and chisel two-bit commissions from brokering deals importing cheap skanky American surpluses for the Brit lower end to consume. BoJO strikes me as a swallower and will go all the way for the Orange Pig, and that goes for his ragbag, tenth rate reject cabinet loons too.
importing cheap skanky American surpluses for the Brit lower end to consume.
and of course you would never use microsoft, apple, google, facebook, paypal, netflix, nasa developed tech, etc.etc.etc.etc.
wonderful innovators the yanks, they are so much more than just chlorinated chicken, burger king, shoddy cars and hollywood schtick.
Here's a fun look at Boris.
^^I was not aware of more than half of those anecdotes.
The presenter tries energetically to turn the piece into a lampoon of BoJo but he cannot come close to the man himself for entertainment value.
Letterboxes, bumboys and the road to mandalay...
EPICALLY EXCELLENT!!!
BoJo is head and shoulders above Trump in the cleverness of his trolling and does it with expertly crafted class.
Champion!
People are so naive but as in most matters it resolves to stupidity as much as to ignorance.
Boris is a very bad tempered man, a chap who when he fails to get his way can become vindictive, mean and ultimately quite childish. He affects that bumbling, congenial manner as a sly deflection of his true character which has been smelted in the crucible of a youth in which his father's caprice contributed to his mother's disaffection and alcoholism and to his peers mocking and bullying him - his default backstop was to seek out greedy approbation whenever the opportunity arose by playing the fool but the reality was that he looked in the mirror and saw only a frightened child angry at the unfairness of a life in which his vaunting ego was forced to wear a clown's suit in order to gain attention and acceptance - his nickname at Eton was 'Yeti'.
The danger in Boris is that he has become the Clown that he so affects to be because in truth he is like all narcissistic egoists, the dynamo of his very being is not geared to achieve greatness out of any worthy idealism but is motivated purely by an overwhelming and compulsive need to be adored and admired - his sexual addiction, and persistent conquest of women who are captured by his boyish charm to service it, give a vivid insight into this psyche. But is that wrong in a PM? Will it detract rather than augment? Well, yes it is in Boris' case, terribly wrong. He is a shallow man with no appetite for the minutiae of life that offers no scope in feeding his insatiable desire for approbation - he wants the kudos but will not do the work and if the devil is in the detail then Boris will either ignore it, lie about it or simply invent a scenario that deflects attention from the issue. He is lazy and slobbish. But the worst aspect of this is that he has no sense of morality shaping his deceit in achieving his aims, he simply does not care - he has destroyed his family life, he destroyed his marriages, he destroyed the trust in which employers invested in him, he has lied to friends and betrayed them and as we know he lied to the country.
Johnson is an abomination of a man who should never have been elected but his party cares little about anything other than its own survival in its egregious pursuit of power.
Truly Johnson is a a fit and proper person to lead a broken down, Brexit Britain.
But if the selfish, lying sack of shit can make you laugh then it's all fine.
Last edited by Seekingasylum; 31-07-2019 at 09:43 AM.
Hilarious bloke, eh Boris? Sideshow clown distracting the populace with his jolly japes and wizard wheezes, whilst giving tax breaks to his mates and generally getting free lunches and fukcing the working clarse up the arse. Same his and his type have been doing ever since the Domesday Book. Jolly good show!
Welcome to the de facto Brexit thread. Post your "Brexit is for fuckwitz" stuff here.
John Oliver has done a good take-down of Boris, explaining how he simultaneously is and isn’t ‘Britain’s Trump’ and dissecting how his buffoonery is a calculated ploy that essentially allows him to get away with being a nasty cnut.
Nicola Sturgeon says meeting Theresa May was ‘soul-destroying’ and ‘torturous’
Scottish first minister delivers brutal verdict on Tory PMs
Nicola Sturgeon has described her meetings with Theresa May as “pretty soul destroying and torturous” and described Boris Johnson as someone who talks “utter nonsense”.
In a brutal verdict on her Tory rivals, the Scottish first minister accused Mr Johnson of “selling something that is not true” and crossing the line between “optimism and delusion”.
Ms Sturgeon said her recent meeting with the new prime minister was “very different” to his predecessor, who would “never depart from a script, no matter what”.
Her outspoken comments came after a new poll showed a boost for support for Scottish independence in the wake of Mr Johnson’s visit to Edinburgh last week.
Mr Johnson, who was booed and jeered by protesters at Bute House, is deeply unpopular north of the border, where his support for a no-deal Brexit is politically toxic.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9040921.html
Fine lass is Nicola.
But by Christ, how much longer will Scotland put up with being shat on?
You have to wonder if they might actually be into it.
We can have our own Wall debate, that would be gareet. I hope Billy gets her way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)