Tory leadership round one

Who will get through to the next round

  • Gove

    Votes: 70 45.5%
  • Hancock

    Votes: 8 5.2%
  • Harper

    Votes: 2 1.3%
  • Hunt

    Votes: 77 50.0%
  • Javid

    Votes: 51 33.1%
  • Johnson

    Votes: 131 85.1%
  • Leadsom

    Votes: 36 23.4%
  • McVey

    Votes: 34 22.1%
  • Raab

    Votes: 72 46.8%
  • Stewart

    Votes: 27 17.5%

  • Total voters
    154
  • Poll closed .
Yes and no. I met a (very) senior member of Khans team who said that when they took over, the general staff of City Hall told them they had found Boris extremely difficult to motivate and understand, and that things tended to happen more due to the quality of the team around him than his own skill.

Now people change and being Mayor of London is certainly no small thing, and one hopes Boris has learnt from it, but I’ve always felt that his main aim in his career was to have a very successful political career, with less concern for what he actually achieved.

As he’s effectively the PM-In-Waiting, I’m crossing my fingers that he’s got himself together, but so far I’m not convinced.
Some of my managers have had direct dealings with both Johnson and Khan; to a man and woman, regardless of their political position, the ones who were willing to speak all favoured working for Boris, including one who can't say "Thatcher" without grimacing and virtually spitting. From what I have been told (by people I trust and rate professionally), BJ had a reputation for being on top of the information, delegating effectively, and holding people to their promises. He surrounded himself with an excellent team and allowed them to do their jobs, as a good leader should.

Khan on the other hand is the Labour equivalent of May as Home Secretary- he says the 'right' things, makes claims and statements which cause issues and when the come home to roost is nowhere to be seen. His fingerprints have been found on some real messes, which he has still denies any responsibility for (eg: Crossrail, Trump balloon). Khan's management team is not as effective nor as trustworthy as Johnson's; their grasp of and grip on the Capitol's issues and challenges is just not as firm, and from what I can see, on the rare occasions they are led, they are poorly led.
 
I have no idea, you’d have to ask him. Possibly he runs a more centralised system; if Boris wasn’t really engaging with the job in the first place it would make sense that others might step in to keep the show in the road.
At the risk of going off-topic, I suspect Khan does indeed get more involved than Boris did. Personally I don’t think either of them come out of City Hall looking particularly good, but then the London Mayor really only has authority over the Met and TFL, and it’s very easy to f’ up either of them.
You are wrong, very wrong about this.
 
Bombast can be a good thing when coupled with authenticity and integrity. With Boris you just get the bombast, and even then I'm not sure if it's an act or not.

If a premier turns out to be a liar and a cheat when in office, shame on them.
If knowingly we put a liar and a cheat in office, shame on us.
I fear, that you really do think that the political class should be trashed. So do I for that matter. I can actually think of no one in the upper echelons that I want to follow. However as so many have pointed out, Churchill was the man of the hour and everyone that mattered loathed him. I think Bojo is in the same mode, if he gets the job done then gets ditched so what?
 
Last edited:
1. No one lies, or gets caught out lying or has managed to hang onto what is a less-than-mediocre political career more than Johnson.

2. He epitomises all that is bad about modern Politics. He's the populist, shallow, lack-of-substance sort of politician that has become the norm since the Millennium. Trump and the Ukrainian actor are others that come to mind

3. He may trounce into Nº10, but I'll wager that he'll makes a pigs ear of it, and given anyone but the Marxist Catweasle as the leader of the opposition, he won't stand a chance in the GE.
1. Really? I suggest you take a very long and hard look at Labours front bench then delve into the morass of their back benches.

2. Again I disagree but in this case I'd disagree whoever was singled out to be the figurehead for bad modern politics. There has always been bad politicians, some worse than others, but they have always been there and always will be. Trump & Putin have nothing to do with the tory leadership battle so why mention them?

3. You can wager all you want you're entitled as everyone is to their opinion, but my opinion is he will do OK as PM and Party Leader, I'm not sure he will stick around for more than two terms though as he's young enough to go into business and chase the money.
 
That's interesting comment. Care to elaborate?

I think he's doing an 'Abbott', in that he's avoiding proper interviews or proper scrutiny. Time will tell though given his launch is today
Already said why, are you attempting to start a seperate discussion so you can argue your point? There's enough of that already from the Remoaners and Boris bashers thanks.
 
I fear, that you really do think that the political class should be trashed. So think of do I for that matter.
I do. I think it should be eviscerated. I think no such construct should exist, and every time I hear 'Westminster Village' I'm motivated to torch it. It's an arrogance and a conceit, and the problem is that it's also become self-perpetuating; a junior staffer with no experience other than how to navigate the greasy pole moves up the political ranks until they are shortlisted for a safe constituency. Hey presto! You get someone with no meaningful experience as an MP, and in these febrile times unless they screw up a lot become junior ministers.

However as so many have pointed out, Churchill was the man of the hour and everyone that mattered loathed him. I think Bojo is in the same mode, if he gets the job done then gets ditched so what?
Boris has been masterful in drawing lines between himself and Churchill, and his pallid book hasn't hurt either. But Boris is not Winston. Winston had a rainbow of meaningful experiences and set backs, and deep qualities of introspection and integrity to learn from them. WInston was complex, industrious, and highly intelligent.

Instead of reading the massive Churchill canon, I'd strongly recommend Simon Schama's Episode 'The Two Winstons' as an excellent tv-essay contrasting Winston with Eric Blair.

Boris is aping Winston, but he doesn't have the WInston qualities, he is donning a Winston shell for his own ends. People may want Boris in because he's seen as direct and iconoclastic (he's not) but I think we do Churchill a massive disservice by perpetuating this comparison with Boris.
 
We should get her into number 10 the little minx.
Send her over dressed all lovely and with a flutter of her eyelashes a smile and naughty whisper of promises she’ll have those Euro bastards agreeing to everything she says.

Of course if they are a gay bunch of negotiators you can forget all of the above but after May I think it’s worth a go.
To win the French over, wouldn't she have to stop washing?
 
I do. I think it should be eviscerated. I think no such construct should exist, and every time I hear 'Westminster Village' I'm motivated to torch it. It's an arrogance and a conceit, and the problem is that it's also become self-perpetuating; a junior staffer with no experience other than how to navigate the greasy pole moves up the political ranks until they are shortlisted for a safe constituency. Hey presto! You get someone with no meaningful experience as an MP, and in these febrile times unless they screw up a lot become junior ministers.



Boris has been masterful in drawing lines between himself and Churchill, and his pallid book hasn't hurt either. But Boris is not Winston. Winston had a rainbow of meaningful experiences and set backs, and deep qualities of introspection and integrity to learn from them. WInston was complex, industrious, and highly intelligent.

Instead of reading the massive Churchill canon, I'd strongly recommend Simon Schama's Episode 'The Two Winstons' as an excellent tv-essay contrasting Winston with Eric Blair.

Boris is aping Winston, but he doesn't have the WInston qualities, he is donning a Winston shell for his own ends. People may want Boris in because he's seen as direct and iconoclastic (he's not) but I think we do Churchill a massive disservice by perpetuating this comparison with Boris.
Have you read Johnson's "pallid book"? I found it a good read, not a worthy history but it was never meant to be one. Johnson is a good writer, he's not a historian and does not pretend to be.

As for Schama, I tend to not watch his TV products as IMHO he isn't a particularly good (ie: balanced, deep thinking, reflective) historian. I much prefer Mary Beard, though I don't agree with her conclusions that often. And Schama's over-worked mannerisms make my teeth itch.
 

crustyrusty

On ROPS
On ROPs
10 runners for the July 22nd Race Week Meeting at Westminster over Jumps, Traps & Shortfalls.
We can expect 2 runners left at the end to win the Prime Minsters Stakes & Keys to No.10 Trophy.
Debates will be televised and expect Lies, Cheating, Figure Pointing & peoples pasts being dragged up.
Dish the Dirt Day is starting now & the heayweights will fight it out for the No.10 Champions Belt.

Riveting it will not be, more like Jeremy Kyle show for toffs, rich and the bored/insane!
 
So if BJ is so competent explain the water cannon fiasco which is relatively minor.

The garden bridge on the other hand is SF chinook level of fiasco
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
10 runners for the July 22nd Race Week Meeting at Westminster over Jumps, Traps & Shortfalls.
We can expect 2 runners left at the end to win the Prime Minsters Stakes & Keys to No.10 Trophy.
Debates will be televised and expect Lies, Cheating, Figure Pointing & peoples pasts being dragged up.
Dish the Dirt Day is starting now & the heayweights will fight it out for the No.10 Champions Belt.

Riveting it will not be, more like Jeremy Kyle show for toffs, rich and the bored/insane!
Well I’m not shy to admit that I fall into a few of those brackets,
Bored, well it pissing down and I’m not going out in this, and insane as I’m on here.
Come on Raab you have some ground to make up.:bounce:
 
Have you read Johnson's "pallid book"? I found it a good read, not a worthy history but it was never meant to be one. Johnson is a good writer, he's not a historian and does not pretend to be.
For me it grated more than it entertained, I gave up halfway through. I just couldn't get over my prejudice that it suited BJ's agenda to have written a book on WC.
As for Schama, I tend to not watch his TV products as IMHO he isn't a particularly good (ie: balanced, deep thinking, reflective) historian. I much prefer Mary Beard, though I don't agree with her conclusions that often. And Schama's over-worked mannerisms make my teeth itch.
He does like to chew over his vowel sounds! That said, I think he's pitched quite well for TV and I do like the 'Two Winstons' episode in that series. When he tackles complex issues in text I think his overall readability drops a few notches. For me, David Cannadine is the gold standard in written modern history.
 
Keunsberg & Rigby doing their failed journalist acts - telling Boris they won't vote for him in their own bonkers language, in the hope that no-one else will.

Meanwhile Boris sails happily on.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Jimmy_Green The Intelligence Cell 1281
Jimmy_Green The Intelligence Cell 406
Auld-Yin The Intelligence Cell 844

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top